Comparative Study of Reinforced Concrete Frame Building and RC- Steel Composite Frame Building

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Comparative Study of Reinforced Concrete Frame Building and RC- Steel Composite Frame Building

Sourabh M. Jadhav1, J. P. Patankar2

1First Author Affiliation & Address

2Second Author Affiliation & Address Font size 11

3Example: Professor, Dept. of xyz Engineering, xyz college, state, country

Abstract Steel industry is growing in almost all parts of the world. The use of steel structure in construction industry is less in India as compared to USA, EU and other developed countries. As well cities in India are amongs high densely inhabitants per square km. which restricts horizontal expansion therefore vertical growth of building becomes predominant. Concrete structures are massive and bestow more seismic weight while steel structure take more ductility and deflection. Composite construction consolidates the better properties of steel and concrete.

In this study the static analysis under the provision of IS1893:2002 is carried out for three dimensional models RCC frame structure and RC-steel composite frame structure with the help of ETAB software. Comparative study of RCC frame structure and RC-steel composite frame structure for G+9 is included.

Subject headings: Composite structures, steel structure framed structure, seismic design, ETABS v18

  1. INTRODUCTION

    In the past , for the construction, the choice was normally between a concrete structure and a masonary structure. Failure of many masonary buildings and multistoried RCC buildings due to earthquake have necessitate structural engineers to look for the different method of construction. Due to significant potential in improving the overall performance through rather modest changes in construction technology, use of composite frame structure is of particular intrest. There is great potential for increasing the volume of steel in construction. Especially the current development need in India. Use of steel, reinforced concrete, and composite steel concrete members which are functioning together such composite systems make use of each type of member in most efficient manner to maximize the structural and economical benefit.

  2. ELEMENTS OF COMPOSITE STRUCTURE

      1. Shear connector

        Mechanical shear connectors are required at the steel- concrete interface. These connectors are designed to (a) transmit longitudinal shear along the interface and (b) prevent separation of steel beam and concrete slab at the interface. There are three types of shear connectors as,

        1. Rigid type

        2. Bond or anchorage type

        3. Flexible type

      2. composite deck slab

        Composite deck slab consist of composite column(encased hot rolled I section), steel beam, steel jacketing.

      3. composite beam

        The steel beams are connected to the concrete slab in such a way that the two act as one unit, the beam is called as composite beam. Composite beams are similar to concrete T- beams where the flange of the T-beam is made of concrete slab and the web of the T-beam is made of the steel section.

      4. Composite column

    It is a compression member consisting either concrete encased hot rolled steel section embedded in concrete. At present there is no Indian standard code covering the design of composite column. The design method largely follows Euro code 4, which provides latest research on composite construction. IS 11384-1985 does not make any specific provisions to composite columns.

  3. METHODOLOGY

    RCC and steel-concrete frame models are analyzed. Seismic analysis of both RCC frame structure and composite frame structure are carried out using software tool ETAB v18. Different parameters such as shear force, storey stiffness, storey displacement, storey drift are discussed

    3.1 Structural details

    A typical plan of building is selected for comparative study of RCC and RC-steel composite having plan dimensions 25m x 16m as shown in figure.,

    3-D model is being prepared for the frame analysis of building in ETABS. Following basic parameters are used for analysis and design of structures.

        1. Material properties

          Unit weight of masonary

          19 kN/m3

          Unit weight of RCC

          25 kN/m3

          Grade of concrete

          M30

          Grade of reinforcing steel

          HYSD500

          Grade of structural steel

          Fe250

          Modulus of elasticity for RCC

          25 kN/m2

          Modulus of elasticity for steel

          210 kN/m2

          Dead load

          Self weight of structural elements

          Live load

          3 kN/m2

          Floor finish load

          1 kN/m2

        2. Earthquake parameters

          Location

          Pune, MH

          Seismic zone

          III

          Soil type

          Medium type II

          Importance factor

          1

          Time period

          Program calculated

          Earthquake load in

          X & Y direction

          Type of diaphragm

          Rigid

        3. Model configuration

    The methodology adopted for achieving the above-mentioned objectives is as follows:

    Model M1- Modelling of regular G+9 R.C.C building Model M2 – Modelling of G+9 building with composite steel beam and RCC column

    Model M3 – Modelling of G+9 building with composite column(encased I section) and RCC beam

    Model M4 – Modelling of G+9 building with composite steel beam and composite column.

    Table -1: Description of model

    Number of bays in X direction

    5

    Number of bays in Y direction

    4

    Width of bays in X direction

    5m

    Width of bays in Y direction

    4m

    Height of typical storey

    3m

    Height of bottom storey

    3.5m

    Slab thickness

    120mm

    Shear wall thickness

    250mm

    Fig 1: Plan

    Fig. 3D view

    Fig 4. Deformed shape of G+9 storey building

    Due to lateral loading

    Graph no.1 Max. storey displacement in X-dir. Due to earthquake

    4.1.2 Max. storey Displacement due to earthquake in Y- direction

    Fig 5. Joint load due to lateral loading.

  4. RESULTS

    1. Max. Storey displacement

      1. Max Storey Displacement due to earthquake in X- direction

        Table no. 2

        7.542

        Storey

        M1

        M2

        M3

        M4

        0

        0

        0

        0

        0

        1

        1.269

        1.165

        1.246

        1.147

        2

        2.825

        2.667

        2.796

        2.645

        3

        4.433

        4.235

        4.4

        4.214

        4

        6.019

        5.785

        5.982

        5.765

        5

        7.271

        7.499

        7.251

        6

        8.959

        8.651

        8.909

        8.629

        7

        10.222

        9.877

        10.163

        9.851

        8

        11.276

        10.896

        11.206

        10.863

        9

        12.063

        11.652

        11.982

        11.612

        10

        12.549

        12.12

        12.459

        12.074

        Table no. 1

        Storey

        M1

        M2

        M3

        M4

        0

        0

        0

        0

        0

        1

        1.094

        1.005

        1.056

        0.972

        2

        2.632

        2.47

        2.575

        2.421

        3

        4.282

        4.063

        4.218

        4.01

        4

        5.923

        5.655

        5.857

        5.604

        5

        7.497

        7.184

        7.43

        7.136

        6

        8.954

        8.598

        8.886

        8.553

        7

        10.245

        9.847

        10.173

        9.803

        8

        11.313

        10.879

        11.238

        10.835

        9

        12.106

        11.645

        12.028

        11.603

        10

        12.609

        12.136

        12.533

        12.099

        Graph no.2 Max. storey displacement in Y-dir. Due to earthquake

    2. Max. storey drift

      Table no. 3

      1. Max. storey drift in X-direction due to earthquake

        Storey

        M1

        M2

        M3

        M4

        0

        0

        0

        0

        0

        1

        0.000313

        0.000287

        0.000302

        0.000278

        2

        0.000514

        0.000489

        0.000507

        0.000484

        3

        0.00055

        0.000531

        0.000548

        0.00053

        4

        0.000547

        0.000531

        0.000546

        0.000531

        5

        0.000525

        0.000509

        0.000524

        0.00051

        6

        0.000486

        0.000471

        0.000485

        0.000472

        7

        0.00043

        0.000417

        0.000429

        0.000417

        8

        0.000356

        0.000344

        0.000355

        0.000344

        9

        0.000265

        0.000255

        0.000264

        0.000256

        10

        0.000168

        0.000164

        0.000168

        0.000166

        Graph no.4 Max. storey drift in Y-dir. Due to earthquake

        4.3 Base shear

        Table No.5

        Graph no.3 Max. storey drift in X-dir. Due to earthquake Table no.4

      2. Max. storey drift in Y-direction due to earthquake

Storey

M1

M2

M3

M4

0

0

0

0

0

1

0.000363

0.000333

0.000356

0.000328

2

0.00052

0.000502

0.000518

0.0005

3

0.000536

0.000523

0.000535

0.000523

4

0.000529

0.000517

0.000527

0.000517

5

0.000508

0.000495

0.000506

0.000495

6

0.000472

0.00046

0.00047

0.000459

7

0.000421

0.000409

0.000418

0.000407

8

0.000351

0.000339

0.000348

0.000338

9

0.000262

0.000252

0.000259

0.00025

10

0.000162

0.000156

0.000159

0.000154

      1. Storey shear in X-dir. Due to earthquake

        Storey

        M1

        M2

        M3

        M4

        1

        366.1214

        307.8752

        374.2663

        314.9574

        2

        364.8312

        306.7787

        372.9444

        313.8327

        3

        360.457

        303.0763

        368.4665

        310.0389

        4

        351.1134

        295.1676

        358.9014

        301.9348

        5

        334.9367

        281.4752

        342.3413

        287.9041

        6

        310.0634

        260.4218

        316.8784

        266.3306

        7

        274.63

        230.4301

        280.605

        235.5979

        8

        226.7728

        189.9225

        231.6134

        194.0896

        9

        164.6285

        137.3219

        167.996

        140.1895

        10

        86.3333

        71.0508

        87.8448

        72.2812

        Graph.5 Base shear in X-dir. Due to earthquake

        Table No.6

        4.3.1 Storey shear in Y-dir. Due to earthquake

        Storey

        M1

        M2

        M3

        M4

        1

        364.6747

        305.1256

        372.0977

        311.4065

        2

        363.3897

        304.0389

        370.7834

        310.2945

        3

        359.0328

        300.3695

        366.3315

        306.5434

        5

        349.7261

        292.5315

        356.8218

        298.5306

        6

        333.6133

        278.9614

        340.3576

        284.6582

        7

        308.8383

        258.096

        315.0422

        263.3279

        8

        273.5449

        228.3721

        278.9791

        232.9417

        9

        225.8768

        188.2264

        230.2714

        191.9014

        10

        163.978

        136.0955

        167.0225

        138.609

        Graph.6 Base shear in Y-dir. Due to earthquake

        RESULTS

        Graph no. 1 and 2 shows that, the structure having steel beam with composite column shows more rigidity compared to RCC beam and column framed structure. The storey displacement of Model no. 4 is 5 % less compared to model no. 1. Max. storey displacement differs in x-direction and y-direction due to rectangular geometry and orientation of column.

        The permissible limit for displacement is H/500 where H is height of building. Total building height is 30.5m that means permissible limit for displacement is 61mm. Permissible limit for storey drift according to IS 1893(part1):2016 is 0.004 times the storey height which is 0.1220, all models are safe in drift criteria. Max. storey drift for all frame structure is within permissible limit.Storey stiffness differs in X-direction and Y-direction owing orientation column

        From chart 5 and 6 it is seen that, Storey shear for steel beam with composite column frame structure has reduced by 15% compare to that of reinforced concrete structure. Base shear for steel beam with RCC column frame is 16% less compared to RC framed structure.

        CONCLUSIONS

        • By keeping same specification and loading, we designed smaller section composite structure For the same bending moment, axial forces .

        • Because of inherent ductility characteristic steel-concrete composite structure under earthquake consideration steel-concrete composite structure performs better

        • As compared to RCC frame structure steel beam with RC column frame structure and steel beam with composite column frame structure require less construction time due to quick errction of the steel beam and ease of formwork of concrete

        • Including the construction period as a function of total cost in the cost estimation will result in increased economy for the composite structure

        • Steel beam with composite column frame structure has less base shear which gives economic foundation design, construction period for steel beam with composite column frame structure is less. Also requirement of construction worker is reduced. Also due to inherent ductility of steel-RC composite structure it performs better in earthquake prone regon

        • According to analysis and my study on that I conclude that steel-beam with composite column frame structure is superior over RCC frame structure, steel beam with RC column frame structure, and Composite column frame structure amongs all

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Praise be to God who gave us life and provided species wisdom. I am infinitely thankful to god who helped me through my whole life. It gives me great pleasure to thank my guide, Prof. J.P.Patankar for their scientific support, accurate and consistent recommendations and their tireless patience during the work of the project. I appreciate their deep knowledge and attention, as well as the encouragement he has given me throughout the entire project. I am grateful to the department of Civil Engineering for giving us the opportunity to carry out this research, which is an integral part of the M- Tech curriculum at the Government College of Engineering Karad. I sincerely thank all the Applied Mechanics Department professors. I also would like to thank those kind- hearted and helpful professors whom I met across my entire course. I would like to thank my classmates and friends for their continued help and encouragement throughout my entire M-Tech studies. Finally, throughout my life, I am extremely grateful to my parents, brothers, sisters and relatives for their love, care, support, encouragement and prayers.

REFERENCES:

  1. Mohamdamir khan Comparative study of R.C.Chand structural steel -concrete composite frame for linear and non-linear analysis IRJET Vol:04 Issue: 07 (July 2017)

  2. Prof. Rajendra R. Bhoir, Prof. Vinay kamble, Prof. Darshana ghankute Analysis and design of composite structure and its comparison with RCC structure IJARSET vol-5 issue-x,sept2017

  3. Mohammed Imran, Shaik Abdulla, S.M.Hasmi Comparative analysis of reinforced concrete and composite structures subjected to static and dynamic loads IJAERD vol-4 issue-7, Aug 2017

  4. S.R.Sutar, P.M.Kulkarni comparative inelastic analysis of RCC and steel-concrete composite frameIOSR-JMCE, Volume 13, Issue 4 Ver. IV (Jul-Aug 2016)

  5. Anamika Tedia, Dr. Savita Maru ,Cost analysis and design of steel- concrete composite structure RCC structure IOSR- JMCE,Volume11,Issue1,Ver2 (Jan2014)

  6. Prof. PrakarshSangave, Mr. Nikhil Madur, Mr. Sagar Waghmare, Mr. Rakesh Shete, Mr. Vinayak Mankondi, Mr.Vinayak Gundla, comparative study of analysis and design of RC and steel structures.IJSER Vol6 Isuue-2(Feb 2015)

  7. IS:1893 (i)-2002., Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures bis, new delhi.

  8. IS 4326 -1993-: Earthquake resistant design and construction of buildings

  9. IS 456:2000,"Indian standard code of practice for plane and reinforced concrete",bureau of Indian standards, new delhi.

  10. IS 11384:1985, Code of practices for design of composite structure , Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

  11. Euro code 4, Design of composite steel and concrete structures, European committee for standardization committee European de normalization europaisches committee fur normung

Leave a Reply

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