A Study of Seismic Behaviour of Multistorey Building Having in Plan Irregularity with Re-Entrant Corner Under Various Conditions

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

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, Indore

Abstract 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.

  1. 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

  2. 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:

    1. Comparative Seismic Analysis of Structure on medium types of Soil present in zone III in India.

    2. Comparative Seismic Analysis of Structures having re- entrant corners and having symmetrical and asymmetrical plan configuration.

    3. To know about the Effect of various positions of shear wall on the seismic parameters.

    4. Compare the results of Linear Static and Response Spectrum Analysis of Structure in the given conditions.

    5. 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.

  3. 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 :

    1. Analysis will be carried out by solving the different re- entrant configuration of symmetrical and asymmetrical plan building by using STAAD Pro Software.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  4. 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

      1. Model generation using STAAD.Pro software.

      2. 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

    1. Live Loads: as per IS: 875 (part-2) 1987 Live Load on typical floors = 3.0kN/m2 Live Load seismic calculation = 0.75kN/m2

    2. 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

  5. COMPARITIVE RESULTS

    1. DISPLACEMENT

      1. 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.

      2. 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

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

  6. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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).

  9. 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).

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *