DESIGN, STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND PERFORMANCE
INVESTIGATION ON STATIC SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF G+10 MULTI
STOREYSTRUCTURES WITH AND WITHOUT FLOATING COLUMN -
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Chandan Kumar1, G. Ragul
2, V.Jayakumar
3, Prasidh E Prakash
4
1Department of Civil Engineering, Budge Budge Institute of Technology, Kolkata, India
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Budge Budge Institute of Technology, Kolkata, India
[email protected] 3Department of Mechanical Engineering, Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha University, India
[email protected] 4 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Malabar College of Engineering and Technology, Kerala, India
Abstract
In recent time, there is a huge revolution in construction industry and lack of horizontal space in
urban areas of India. Architects and structural engineers have developed many innovative
techniques to occupy the vertical space by constructing tall structure. Also the demand for more
open space in ground and upper story has increased in past decade. To overcome this, a
technique called floating column is adopted in multistory structures.
In this research work an attempt is made tostudies the behavior of G+10 multistorey structures
with floating column and without floating column by static seismic analysis. To study the forces
in columns exterior, interior and core columns are grouped and Parameters such as story drifts,
story displacement, and Base shear were compared to get economic design in seismic prone
areas. Design and Analysis was carried out by using STAAD PRO V8i 2016 Software.
Key words: Floating Columns, High-rise buildings, seismic analysis, STAAD PRO V8i, Base
shear.
1. Introduction
Shrikanth .M.K et.al, [1] studied the behaviour of G+5 story structure with and without floating
column for parameters such as drift and displacement of the building by SAP 2000v17
software.Priyankakumari, N.r.Dhamge, [2] have done the linear dynamic analysis of floating
column structure and comparison of axial load, displacement, moment and shear in four different
International Journal of Pure and Applied MathematicsVolume 119 No. 16 2018, 805-819ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version)url: http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/Special Issue http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/
805
seismic zones.T.Raja. Sekhar, P.V.Prasad, [3] studied the behavior of framed building by using
time history analysis on a 3D model which was on floating and non-floating column structure
and put forward the relationship between the behavior of structure in different seismic zones of
india and studied the various parameters such as base shear, displacement ect.,PrernaNautiyal,
Saleem Akhtar and GeetaBatham, [4] investigated on the behavior of floating column structure
for different soil excitations(different types of soil) and to get the idea of safety factor as there is
no provision for magnification factor in any IS code.Shiwliroy, GargiDanda de [5] investigated
the behavior of different story structures with floating column and studied the bending moment,
shear force variation at different levels for various structure G+3, G+5, G+10.
SreekanthGandlaNanabala, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla, Arunakanthi E, [6] studied the time
history analysis on two types of structure one with G+5 non floating column and another G+5
floating column structure for different time history data from past and compared the behavior of
two structure to get an idea for an economic design in seismic prone areas. NiteenMalu,
Amaresh.S.Patil, [7] studied the behavior of various g+10 structure with pushover analysis in
seismic prone areas by ETABS software and compared the base shear, story shear response of
the structure.
Fig.1Floating column load path
2. Analysis of structure
The analysis is carried out for the effect of floating columns in lateral performance of a
symmetrical shape G+10 story building for the following Structures.
CASE1: RC Building without floating column.
CASE2: RC Building with floating column at ground floor in central level.
2.1 Basic data
RC Building and floating column building.
1. No of stories : 10 stories
2. Roof height : 28Mts
3. Slab thickness : 125mm
4. Grade of concrete : Grade 35
5. Grade of steel : Fe500
6. Storey Height : 3.5m
7. Column spacing : 6.00m
8. Outer and Inner Columns : up to 10th
floor = 1.50 x 1.50m
9. Perimeter Framing beam size : 230 x 600mm
10. All other Beams : 230 x 600 mm.
3. Loads on the structure
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
806
3.1 Live Load
Live load is assumed as per IS 875(part 2-imposed loads) table 1.
Since the building is assumed to be an office building the live load was taken 3 kN/m², (office
buildings with no separate storage)all floors. These slab panels are assumed to behave as a rigid
diaphragm.
3.2 SUPER IMPOSED DEAD LOADS (S.D.L.)
3.2.1 Floor Load:
A floor load of 1 kN/m² is applied on all the slab panels on all the floors for the floor finishes and
the other things.
3.2.2 Member Load:
A UDL of 3kN/m is considered on inner beams and 6kN/m is considered on perimeter beams for
the wall load considering the wall to be made of Light Weight Bricks.
3.3 Wind load
Wind load in this study is established in accordance with IS 875(part 3-Wind loads).
The Basic wind speed as per the code is Vb=44m/s.
The coefficients K1 and K2 are taken as 1.0.
The terrain category is taken as „Category 4‟ with structure class C.
Taking internal pressure coefficient as ±0.2 the net pressure coefficient Cp (windward) works out
as +0.8 and Cp (leeward) as -0.5 based on h/w and l/w ratio of table 4 of IS 875 (part3).
3.4 Earthquake Loads
Earthquake load in this study is established in accordance with IS 1893(part 1)-2002.
The city of Hyderabad falls in “zone 2”.
Hence Zone factor Z=0.10.
The response reduction factor R is taken as 3.0 for all frames.
Ta = 0.075*h0.75
VB = Ah* W.
Qi = VB * (Wi*hi2)*(∑Wj*hj
2)-1
The structure is analyzed as per the loading combinations provided in IS: 456-2000.
The behaviors of 6 columns are studied as given below:
C1 - exterior center column
C2 - exterior penultimate column
C3 - exterior corner column
C4 - interior center column
C5 - interior corner column
C6 - core column
4. PLAN AND ISOMETRIC VIEWS OF THE STRUCTURE:
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
807
Fig.2 Centerline plan of both normal Fig.3 floating column Structure
Fig.4 Isometric View of floating column Structure
Fig.5 Front View of floating column Structure
Fig.7 Isometric view of Structure without floating column
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
808
Fig.8 Isometric view of Structure with floating column at ground level
Fig.9 Central section of Structure with floating column at ground level and first floor level
Fig.10 Isometric view of Structure with floating column at ground level and first floor level
Fig.11 Top view of the structure
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
809
5. Result and discussions
5.1 Drift and displacement
The most significant basic parameter monitored throughout the whole analysis process was Drift
and Displacement at the top story of the building. The following shows the displacement & drift
as follows:
5.2 Graphs for column displacement for floating column and normal building
Fig.12 Column displacement for floating column and normal building inX-direction
Fig.13 Column displacement for floating column and normal building inY-direction
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 50 100 150
disp x
disp x
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
-4 -2 0 2
disp y
disp y
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
810
Fig.14 Column displacement for floating column and normal building inZ-direction
5.3 Column Axial Forces
The structural scheme analyzed in the present study is activated once the outriggers are
engaged and transfer the core bending moment to the outboard column as a couple of axial
forces.
Columns considered for comparison of Analysis are C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6
5.4 Graphs for column axial force for floating column and normal building compression
Fig.15 Column axial force for floating column and normal building compression in Px-direction
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 50 100 150
disp Z
disp Z
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
0 10 20 30
FLOATING COLUMN
WITH COLUMN
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
811
Fig.16 Column axial force for floating column and normal building compression in Py-direction
Fig.17 Column axial force for floating column and normal building compression in Pz-direction
Fig.18 Column axial force for floating column and normal building compression in Mx-direction
-1000
0
10002000
30004000
5000
60007000
8000
900010000
0 10 20 30
FLOATING COLUMN
WITH COLUMN
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 10 20 30
FLOATING COLUMN
WITH COLUMN
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30
FLOATING COLUMN
WITH COLUMN
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
812
Fig.19 Column axial force for floating column and normal building compression in My-direction
Fig.20 Column axial force for floating column and normal building compression in Mz
Storey drift
Another very important factor that is monitored is the storey drift along the height of the buiding.
The storey drift that were monitored as shown in below figure
5.5 Drift:
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 10 20 30
FLOATINGCOLUMN
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30
FLOATING COLUMN
WITH COLUMN
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
813
Fig.21 Storey drifts for floating column and normal building in X-direction.
Fig.22 Storey drifts for floating column and normal building in Z-direction.
5.6 Drift and Displacement
The most significant basic parameter monitored throughout the whole analysis process
was Drift and Displacement at the top story of the building. The following shows the
displacement & drift as follows
6. CONCLUSIONS:
The following conclusions are made from the present study.
6.1 Stiffness:
1) The use of floating column in R.C.C structure with regular geometry does not have any
effect on stiffness of building and it is efficient under lateral load if the structure is
carefully designed in view of beam column joints with ductile detailing as per IS
13920:1993.
6.2. Drift:
1) Both the cases show a gradual increase in drift from base to top story.
Case i) floating column building top story drift = 35 mm
Case ii) Normal building top story drift=39 mm
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
X IN CM F
X IN CM
0
10
20
30
40
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Z IN CM F
Z IN CM
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
814
2) In floating column building there is no major increase in the drift of the structure.
i)The drift was gradually increasing form base to top the drift is 9%
ii) By the providing floating column the drift increases to 10.8% at top story
iii) By the providing floating column the drift at floating column level is 9.1% increase
when comfit with the normal structure. This satisfies serviceability criteria.
3) In normal building there was a gradual increase of drift from base to top which was also
under the serviceability criteria.
4) When both the cases were compared the structure shows similar graph and found to be
10% more in floating column case
6.3. Axial forces:
1) The axial force for columns C1, C2 and C3, C4 and C5, C6 were equal as they are mere
image of each other.
In this the central columns are stressed more than the outer columns
Column C1:
Shear force and axial load:
There was a 6.7% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Px.
There was a 66.8% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Py.
There was a 6.7% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Pz.
Bending moments:
There was a 1.1% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mx.
There was a 162% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in My.
There was a 6.1% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mz.
Column C2:
Shear force and axial load:
There was a 6.7% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Px.
There was a 66.8% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Py.
There was a 18.1% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Pz
Bending moments:
There was a 6.1% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mx.
There was a 159.6% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in My.
There was a 6.1% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mz.
Column C3:
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
815
Shear force and axial load:
There was a 11.9% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Px.
There was a 47.3% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Py.
There was a 11.9% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Pz.
Bending moments:
There was a 7.0% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mx.
There was a 112.0% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in My.
There was a 3.0% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mz
Column C4:
Shear force and axial load:
There was a 11.9% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Px.
There was a 47.3% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Py.
There was a 4.8% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Pz.
Bending moments:
There was a 3.1% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mx.
There was a 111.0% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in My.
There was a 3.0% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mz.
Column C5:
Shear force and axial load:
There was a 4.0% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Px.
There was a 46.7% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Py.
There was a 21.5% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Pz.
Bending moments:
There was a 11.8% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mx.
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
816
There was a 108.0% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in My.
There was a 2.7% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mz
Column C6:
Shear force and axial load:
There was a 4.0% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Px.
There was a 46.7% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Py.
There was a 15.7% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Pz
Bending moments:
There was a 12.0% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mx.
There was a 107.0% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in My.
There was a 2.7% increase in the floating column can while compared with normal
structure in Mz.
Displacement:
1) Both the structures showed a gradual increase in displacement and graph shown similarly
Patten from base to top with an increase of 21.7%@ top when compared with normal case.
2) Displacement of the column C1&C2 in floating column building shows 21.7% increase in
compression to normal building.
3) Displacement of the column C3&C4 in floating column building shows 24.9% increase in
compression to normal building.
4) Displacement of the column C4&C6 in floating column building shows 6.3% increase in
compression to normal building.
As per the study and on compression of both the can it is found that the provision of floating
column is a structure in regular geometry does not have any effect on a structure and the design
in economical and serviceable under lateral loads for both cases.
7. SCOPE FOR THE FUTURE WORK
1. Further it should study for floating column at top floor and other position in building.
2. Complication caused by the provision floating column on the internal columns that are more
stressed (or) column which is more stressed should be studies. Behavior of column under Py
3. Floating column in irregular geometry
4. Research can also be done on steel floating column.
REFERENCES
[1] Srikanth.M.K, Yogendra.R.Holebagilu, “Seismic response of complex building with floating
column for zone II and zone V, International journal of Engineering Research, ISSN: 2321-7758
Vol.2., Issue.4, 2014, pp.1228-1234.
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
817
[2] Priyankakumari,N.r.Dhamge. ”Analysis of multistoried building with floating column”,
International journal of scientific Research and development. Vol. 3, Issue.8, 2015 .ISSN: 2321-
0613
[3] T.Raja. Sekhar, P.V.Prasad,” Study of behavior of seismic analysis of multisttory building
with and without floating column”. Carib .j. SciTech, 2014, Vol2, Pp.697-710.
[4] PrernaNautiyal, Saleem Akhtar and GeetaBatham, “Seismic response evaluation of RC frame
building with floating column considering different soil conditions”, International Journal Of
Current Engineering And Technology, E-ISSN: 2277 – 4106,(February 2014), Pp.132-138.
[5] Shiwliroy, GargiDanda de, “Behavioural studies of floating column on framed
structure”International journal of research in engineering and technology, E-ISSN: 2319-1163,
Vol. 9, Issue 9, September 2015, pp.435-440.
[6] SreekanthGandlaNanabala, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla, ArunakanthiE,”Seismic Analysis
of A Normal Building and Floating Column Building”, International journal of engineering
research and technology, ISSN: 2278-0181, Vol. 3, Issue 9, September 2014, pp.981-987.
[7] NiteenMalu, Amaresh.S.Patil, “Performance of RC frame structure with floating column and
soft storey in different earthquake zones using pushover analysis”, International research journal
of Engineering and technology, eISSN: 2395-0056, Vol.4., Issue.9, September 2017, pp.1228-
1234.
[8] Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of structures, Part1: General provisions and
buildings, IS1893:2002, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[9] IS 875 (Part-I) Bureau of Indian Standards (1987) Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other
than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures: Dead Loads-Unit Weights of Building Materials
and Stored Materials (Second Revision). UDC 624.042: 006.76.
[10] IS 875 (Part-II) Bureau of Indian Standards (1987) Code of Practice for Design Loads For
Buildings and Structures: Imposed Loads (Second Revision). UDC 624.042.3:006.76.
[11] Duggal S K (2010), “Earthquake Resistance Design of Structure”, Four Editions, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue
818
819
820