Response of Multistorey Structure with and Without of Expansion Gap for Wind Loading and Dynamic Analysis

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Response of Multistorey Structure with and Without of Expansion Gap for Wind Loading and Dynamic Analysis

Krushna Kishor Shahane 1, L. G. Kalurkar2

1P.G. Student MGMs JNEC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.

2AssociateProfessor, the Department of Civil Engineering MGMs JNEC, Aurangabad-431002, Maharashtra, India.

Abstract – Now a days Buildings are analysed and designed by the different software such as Staad pro, Etabs, sap 2000 etc. The latest Practice for designing the Buildings are Etabs and Staad pro because of their best user interface. In our case the building we are analysing with the help of Staad pro by the use of Different codes for Earthquake, Wind and Service loads etc. This paper presents an investigation on behaviour of Multi-storey building with and without expansion joint by creating 8 different model which includes the Shear wall, Response spectrum analysis wind analysis etc.

Key Words: Expansion joint, shear wall, Response spectrum analysis, Wind analysis etc.

  1. INTRODUCTION

    In order to design a structure to resist wind and earthquake loads, the forces on the structure must be specified. The exact forces that will be occur during the life of the structure cannot be anticipated. Most National Building Codes identify some factors according to the boundary conditions of each building considered in the analysis to provide for life safety. Where there is another technique to resist or to minimize the ground motion effect on earthquake is to provide the expansion joints on the building. The codes say that it is compulsory to provide the expansion joint at every 45m if the building is more in length. The term expansion joint as used refers to the isolation joints provided within a Building to permit the separate segments of the structural frame to expand and contract in response to Temperature changes without adversely affecting the buildings structural integrity or serviceability. The normal practice in runways, bridges, buildings and road construction is to provide expansion joints between cutting slabs of reinforced concrete at designing intervals and at intersections with other constructions. These join t filers are then covered with sealing compounds. Building expansion joints are used to cover the space between components, and provide a barrier to the exterior. Expansion joints can follow complicated paths along varying materials. Copper is an excellent material for such joints, since it is easy to form and lasts a long time.

  2. PRELIMINARY DATA CONSIDERED FOR THE ANALYSIS:

    • Area covering = 25m x 84 m. (As shown in fig 01)

    • Total Height of the building = 32 m

    • Floor to Floor Height = 3.2m

    • COLUMN DETAILS:

    • Central column =300×750 mm

    • Outer corner column =300×650 mm

    • Outer peripheral column =300×600 mm

    • BEAM DETAILS:

    • Outer Beams =300×450 mm

    • Internal Beams =300×530 mm

  3. F O L L O W I N G A R E CODES CONSIDERED

    FOR THE ANALYSIS:

    R.C.C. design : IS 456: 2000

    • Earthquake design : IS1893: 2002

    • Code for Dead load : IS875: Part 1

    • Code for Live load : IS875: Part 2

    • Code for wind load : IS 875: Part 3 1987 & 2015

  4. STAAD MODEL PREPARED

  1. Model-01 -Without Expansion wind load IS 875:2015

  2. Model-02 -With Expansion wind load IS 875:2015

  3. Model-03 -Without Expansion wind load IS 875:1987

  4. Model-04 -With Expansion wind load IS 875:1987

  5. Model-05 -Without Expansion wind load shear wall IS 875:2015

  6. Model-06 -With Expansion wind load shear wall IS 875:2015

  7. Model-07 -Without Expansion Dynamic analysis IS 875:2015

  8. Model-08 -With Expansion Dynamic analysis IS 875:2015

    1. EARTHQUAKE DETAILS

      • ZONE : IV(DELHI)

      • ZONE FACTORE :0.24

      • IMPORTANCE FACTOR : 1.5

      • TIME PERIOD IN STATIC X :0.57

      • TIME PERIOD IN STATIC Y :0.31

      FIG: SHOWS THE PLAN OF THE BUILDING

      FIG: SHOWS THE ELEVATION

      FIG: SHOWS THE 3D MODEL IN STAAD PRO

      FIG: SHOWS THE EXTRUDED VIEW IN STAAD PRO

    2. RESULTS: –

      Table1. MODEL TIME PERIOD FOR THE DYNAMICLOAD CONSIDERATION WITH AND WITHOUT EXPANSION JOINTS

      SR.NO

      MODE

      TIMEPERIOD IN SECONDS WITHOUT EXPANSION JOINT

      TIMEPERIOD IN SECONDS

      WITH EXPANSION JOINTS

      1.

      MODE 01

      1.96

      2.34

      2.

      MODE 02

      1.87

      2.30

      3

      MODE 03

      1.41

      2.11

      Table2. BASE SHEAR DETAILS

      LOAD CASES

      WITHOUT EXPANSION

      JOINT

      WITH EXPANSION

      JOINT

      BASE SHEAR FOR EQX

      2111 KN

      1838 KN

      BASE SHEAR FOR EQZ

      1570 KN

      1387 KN

      Table3. MAXIMUM NODAL DISPLACEMENT WITHOUT EXPANSION JOINT

      SR. NO

      LOAD CASE

      IS 875-3

      [1987]

      IS 875-3

      [2015]

      MODEL WITH SHEAR WALL

      1.

      DL

      11.599

      11.599

      11.59

      2.

      LL

      1.112

      1.112

      1.108

      3

      WIND X+VE

      3.25

      2.27

      1.28

      4

      WIND X-VE

      3.25

      2.27

      1.28

      5

      WIND Z+VE

      21.77

      15.208

      9.93

      6

      WIND Z-VE

      21.77

      15.208

      9.93

      SR. NO

      LOAD CASE

      IS 875-3

      [1987]

      IS 875-3

      [2015]

      MODEL WITH SHEAR WALL

      1.

      DL

      11.599

      11.599

      5.34

      2.

      LL

      1.113

      1.113

      0.84

      3

      WIND X+VE

      5.47

      3.28

      1.43

      4

      WIND X-VE

      7.85

      5.48

      1.43

      5

      WIND Z+VE

      20.19

      14.84

      5.78

      6

      WIND Z-VE

      20.19

      14.84

      5.78

      SR. NO

      LOAD CASE

      IS 875-3

      [1987]

      IS 875-3

      [2015]

      MODEL WITH SHEAR WALL

      1.

      DL

      11.599

      11.599

      5.34

      2.

      LL

      1.113

      1.113

      0.84

      3

      WIND X+VE

      5.47

      3.28

      1.43

      4

      WIND X-VE

      7.85

      5.48

      .43

      5

      WIND Z+VE

      20.19

      14.84

      5.78

      6

      WIND Z-VE

      20.19

      14.84

      5.78

      Table4. MAXIMUM NODAL DISPLACEMENT WITH EXPANSION JOINT.

      25

      25

      21.77 21.77

      21.77 21.77

      20

      20

      15.208 15.208

      15.208 15.208

      15

      15

      11.599 11.599

      11.599 11.599

      9.93

      9.93

      9.93

      9.93

      Table5. MAXIMUM NODAL DISPLACEMENT WITH AND WITHOUT EXPANSION JOINT WHILE CONSIDERING DYNAMIC EARTHQUAKE

      SR. NO

      LOAD CASE

      MODEL WITH EXPANSIO N JOINT

      MODEL WITHOUT EXPANSIO N JOINT

      1.

      DL

      11.59

      11.59

      2.

      LL

      1.113

      1.105

      7

      EQ X+

      11.19

      9.19

      8

      EQ X-

      11.19

      9.19

      9

      EQ Z+

      15.43

      12.78

      10

      EQ Z-

      15.43

      12.78

      10

      10

      5

      5

      3.25

      3.25

      3.25

      3.25

      1.112 2.27 2.27

      1.112 2.27 2.27

      1.112

      1.112

      1.2

      1.2

      1.2

      1.2

      0

      0

      DL

      DL

      LL

      LL

      WX+

      WX+

      WX-

      IS 875-2015

      WX-

      IS 875-2015

      WZ+

      WZ+

      WZ-

      WZ-

    3. GRAPH:

      IS 875-1987

      IS 875-1987

      WITH SHEAR WALL

      WITH SHEAR WALL

      01] Time period

      2.5

      2

      1.5

      1

      0.5

      0

      2.34 2.3

      2.11

      1.96 1.87

      1.41

      Mode 01 Mode02 Mode 03 WITHOUT EJ WITH EJ

      04] NODAL DISPLACEMENT [WITH EXPANSION JOINT]

      25

      20.19 20.19

      20

      15 14.84 14.84

      11.599 11.599

      10

      7.85

      5.34 5.47

      5.48

      5.78

      5.78

      5 1.113 3.28

      02] Base shear:

      0

      1.113 0.84

      1.43

      1.43

      2500

      2500

      2111

      1838

      1570

      1387

      2111

      1838

      1570

      1387

      DL LL WX+ WX- WZ+ WZ-

      IS 875-1987 IS 875-2015 WITH SHEAR WALL

      2000

      1500

      2000

      1500

      05] NODAL DISPLACEMENT[WITH AND WITHOUT EXPANSION JOINT] WHILE CONSIDERING DYNAMIC EARTHQUAKE

      1000

      500

      0

      1000

      500

      0

      18

      16 15.43 15.43

      14 12.78 12.78

      BS FOR DX BS FOR DY

      WITHOUT EJ WITH EJ

      BS FOR DX BS FOR DY

      WITHOUT EJ WITH EJ

      03] NODAL DISPLACEMENT [WITHOUT EXPANSION JOINT]

      12 11.59

      10

      8

      6

      4

      11.59

      11.19 11.19

      9.19 9.19

      1.105

      2 1.113

      0

      DL LL EQ X+ EQ X- EQ Z+ EQ Z-

      WITH EJ WITHOUT EJ

    4. CONCLUSIONS

Following are the conclusion we have obtained from above analysis results are: –

  1. Time period

    In case of Time period the values where obtained for without Expansion joint model is 1.96,1.86,1.41 in first, second and third mode is lower than the Model time period obtained in model with Expansion joint is [2.34,2.30,2.11] for First, second and third mode respectively as shown in table 01. Which means that while using is Expansion joint in the model the building will take more time to oscillate for all three modes when comparing with without expansion joint building model.as shown in table 01.

  2. Base shear

    Base shear values are in Static X direction is 2111 kN in Normal building model without expansion joint and for the building model using Expansion joint the base shear values are 1838kn which means the base shear values are reducing While using expansion joint in the building model.as shown in table 02.

  3. Nodal Displacement

A] While considering the IS 875-1987 and 875-2015 for the wind load the obtained results indicate that there is no measure different in the Displacement but the values obtained by using 875-2015 are quite lower than that of is 875-1987 as shown in table.03,04 in Wind x and Wind Z direction.

B] In case of Shear wall the Nodal displacement values are getting reduces by almost 50% because the shear wall having the in plane as well as outoff plane stiffness due to that the displacement is reduces as shown in the table 03,04 above.

C] If earthquake is consider in both model of with and without Expansion joint the displacement values are increased by almost 30% in EX, EZ direction in the model where Expansion joints are used as shown in the table 5 above.

9.REFERENCES

  1. K. Sai ramya study of structural behaviour of a framed c, t, l, rectangular structures with and with out considering temperature stresses and expansion joints.

  2. Dr. B. Sujatha, B Anil Kumar effect of expansion joints on dynamic analysis of structure.

  3. Anjana c jain, ananya john Seismic analysis of expansion gap for multistoried buildings.

  4. Junaid aziz, m. A. Azeem Comparative Study of a R.C.C Structure for the Elimination of Expansion Joint Subjected to Temperature Stresses.

  5. Dr. Karthiyaini S Investigation of flat slab structures With and without expansion joints For thermal stresses.

  6. Khaled M. Heiza, Magdy A. Tayel Comparative Study of The Effects of Wind and Earthquake Loads on High-rise Buildings.

  7. Shilpa Nirman Thilakarathna The Effect of Wind Loads on the Seismic Performance of Tall Buildings.

  8. Yogesh katkar Comparative study of wind load effect on high rise building.

  9. Mahesh Ram Patel, R.C. Singh analysis of a tall structure using staad pro providing different wind intensities as per 875 part-III.

  10. B. Shankar seismic & wind evaluation of g+10 Residential building.

  11. Kilari Lakshmi Kanth Patrudu Comparative Analysis for Two Different Wind Speeds for A G+10 Storey Structure.

  12. Potnuru Manoj Wind Analysis of a Multi Storied Building with Basic Wind Speeds.

  13. Venkanna, Potlapelli. Avinash Effect of wind on tall building frame

    influence of aspect ratio.

  14. Vikrant Trivedi, Sumit Pahwa Wind Analysis and Design of G+11 Storied Building Using STAAD-Pro.

  15. A. A. Kale, S. A. Rasa Seismic & Wind Analysis of Multistory Building: A Review.

  16. Imam Usman Shekh, Udaysinh Redekar Analysis, Design and Estimation of G +7 Storey Building Structure by using IS Code Methods and by Software's.

  17. Anoop Singh, Vikas Srivastava Seismic Analysis and Design of Building Structures in STAAD Pro.

  18. Aneeket T. Patil and Sachin B. Kadam Behaviour of Multistorey Building under the Effect of Wind and Earthquake for Different Configuration of Shear Wall.

  19. Azlan Adnan, Suhana Suradi comparison on the effect of earthquake and wind loads on the Performance of reinforced concrete buildings.

  20. Ashish Sadh, Ankit Pal A Literature Study of Wind Analysis on High Rise Building.

  21. Udaya bala k1, manish kumar gupta dynamic analysis of multi- storey building.

  22. M V Naresh, K J Brahma Chari Study on Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multi-storied Building in Seismic Zones.

  23. By matthew D. Brady, P.e. Expansion Joint Consider for Buildings.

Leave a Reply

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