Seismic Analysis of Building with and Without Shear Wall for Building with RCC and Composite Column

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Seismic Analysis of Building with and Without Shear Wall for Building with RCC and Composite Column

1Akansha Dwivedi

1Post Graduate Student in Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,

Radha Govind Engineering College, Meerut, UP ,India

2 B.S Tyagi

2 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,

Radha Govind Engineering College, Meerut, UP, India

Abstract – Shear wall is a structural element which is provided for resisting horizontal forces (like wind force, earthquake force, etc) parallel to the plane of the wall and for supporting gravity loads simultaneously. These are basically flexural members which are generally provided in high rise buildings to avoid the total collapse of the building exposed to seismic forces. For seismic design of buildings, RC structural walls or shear walls are major earthquake resisting members which offer lateral load resistance by providing an efficient bracing system.

The response of the buildings is dominated by the properties of seismic shear walls and so it becomes important to evaluate the seismic response of the shear walls appropriately. In this study, the effect of presence of shear walls in RCC and composite structures in being analysed on basis of storey displacement, storey drift, stiffness, lateral force and base shear for G+19 buildings. Effectiveness of shear wall is being studied with the help of four different models. Model 1 is RCC building without shear wall, Model 2 is RCC building with shear wall, Model 3 is building with composite columns having no shear wall and Model 4 is building with composite columns in presence of shear wall. The earthquake load is applied to a building in zone IV and the analysis is done using both static analysis method and response spectrum analysis method.

Keywords: ETAB 2017, RCC buildings, Building with steel- concrete composite columns, Seismic analysis, Shear wall.

  1. INTRODUCTION

    In recent time, a lot of effort is given to develop the structural control devices so that seismic impact in buildings can be reduced. One such practice is introduction of shear wall in the buildings. Shear walls are one of the best means to provide earthquake resistance in multi- storied building. Behaviour of building under earthquake load depends on how the weight, stiffness and strength are distributed in the horizontal and lateral direction. Shear walls are used in the building to reduce the effect of earthquake by improving the seismic response of buildings. It becomes important to ensure adequate lateral stiffness to resist lateral load. For high- rise buildings, beam and column sizes are very heavy and requirement of steel is large because of which there is a lot of congestion at the joints and making it difficult to vibrate concrete at the joints and also the displacement is quite heavy.

    In India most of the buildings are low rise. So, RCC members are used widely as it is easy to construct and

    is economical. However with the growth of population there is increasing growth in high-rise buildings in metropolis. It is observed that the use of composite members over RCC members is much more effective and economical in high rise buildings. When a steel component like I-beam is attached to a concrete component like floor slab or bridge deck, a composite member is formed. In composite structures the high strength of the concrete in compression and high strength of the steel in tension are utilized in combination. Thus steel- concrete composite construction makes use of compressive strength of concrete and tensile strength of steel together to give more economical and effective structure. Such an advanced system is gaining recognition in high rise buildings.

    In this paper effectiveness of shear wall in RCC building and building with composite columns have been studied with the help of four different models using Etabs in zone IV . The analysis is done by response spectrum analysis method and static analysis method. The models considered for the analysis are as follows:

    Model 1 is RCC building without shear wall, Model 2 is RCC building with shear wall,

    Model 3 is building with composite columns having no shear wall and

    Model 4 is building with composite columns in presence of shear wall.

  2. BUILDING MODELING

    For the analysis 20 storey building has been considered having a height of 3m for each story including the ground storey. The structure modelled in symmetrical about both the axis. The modelling has been done in accordance to IS 456 and IS 1893 .The buildings has the fixed support at the base. The buildings are modelled using software ETAB for zone IV. Centre to centre distance between the two consecutive columns are 4m, the columns provided is square as they resist earthquake loading better. The study is carried out for the same building plan with and without shear wall for both RCC columns and composite columns by making four different models. Equivalent static method and response spectrum method have been used for the analysis and analysis has been done considering the parameters like storey displacement, storey drift, stiffness , lateral force and base shear .

    Table 1: Building description

    Building storey

    G+19

    Total height of building

    60 m

    Height of each storey

    3.0 m

    Beam size

    350mm x700mm

    Column size

    600 mm X 600 mm

    Shear wall thickness

    250 mm

    Slab thickness

    225 mm

    Thickness of external walls

    230m

    Thickness of internal walls

    115

    Live load

    3 KN/m2

    Floor finish

    2 KN/m2

    Grade of Concrete

    M30

    Grade of reinforcing Steel

    HYSD 415

    Grade of Steel

    Fe250

    Density of Concrete

    25 KN/m3

    Zone

    IV

    Importance factor

    1.2

    Soil condition

    Medium soil

    Response reduction factor

    5.0

    Damping ratio

    5%

    Fig 1: Plan view of building without shear wall Fig 2: Elevation view of building without shear wall

    Fig 3: Plan view of building with shear Fig 4: Elevation view of building with shear wall

  3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Equivalent static method and response spectrum method is used to analyse the results of all four models. Loads are calculated and distributed as per IS 1893:2016 and results obtained is compared as per following parameters.

      1. STATIC ANALYSIS OF G+19 BUILDINGS

        1. Lateral Displacement- From the observed results it was found that building with composite column in presence of shear wall showed minimum displacement. Also it is observed that the building on introduction of shear wall reduced displacement in the building substantially.

          Table 2: Storey displacement

          STOREY

          RCC

          (mm)

          RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

          (mm)

          COMPOSITE

          (mm)

          COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

          (mm)

          1

          6.562

          1.427

          4.123

          1.154

          2

          17.534

          4.305

          12.168

          3.458

          3

          29.419

          8.29

          21.505

          6.599

          4

          41.539

          13.165

          31.266

          10.43

          5

          53.728

          18.744

          41.146

          14.814

          6

          65.909

          24.868

          51.019

          19.637

          7

          78.016

          31.398

          60.809

          24.794

          8

          89.979

          38.211

          70.457

          30.192

          9

          101.723

          45.199

          79.902

          35.748

          10

          113.168

          52.261

          89.078

          41.386

          11

          124.227

          59.311

          97.917

          47.037

          12

          134.808

          66.271

          106.344

          52.638

          13

          144.813

          73.071

          114.28

          58.137

          14

          154.139

          79.655

          121.64

          63.486

          15

          162.678

          85.977

          128.336

          68.647

          16

          170.318

          92.002

          134.274

          73.591

          17

          176.943

          97.714

          139.363

          78.302

          18

          182.435

          103.115

          143.517

          82.774

          19

          186.693

          108.234

          146.69

          87.029

          20

          189.744

          113.06

          148.965

          91.014

          Displacement (mm)

          200

          150

          100

          50

          0

          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

          RCC RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

          COMPOSITE COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

          Fig 5: Comparison of storey displacement

        2. Storey Drift-Decrease in storey drift was observed in presence of shear wall in both building with RCC column as well as building with Composite column. Maximum drift was observed in RCC building without shear wall.

          Table 3: Storey drift

          STOREY

          RCC

          (mm)

          RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

          (mm)

          COMPOSITE

          (mm)

          COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

          (mm)

          1

          6.562

          1.427

          4.123

          1.154

          2

          10.972

          2.879

          8.045

          2.304

          3

          11.885

          3.985

          9.337

          3.141

          4

          12.12

          4.875

          9.761

          3.83

          5

          12.189

          5.579

          9.88

          4.385

          6

          12.181

          6.124

          9.872

          4.823

          7

          12.107

          6.53

          9.791

          5.157

          8

          11.963

          6.814

          9.648

          5.398

          9

          11.744

          6.987

          9.444

          5.556

          10

          11.445

          7.063

          9.176

          5.638

          11

          11.059

          7.05

          8.839

          5.651

          12

          10.581

          6.959

          8.427

          5.602

          13

          10.005

          6.801

          7.936

          5.499

          14

          9.326

          6.584

          7.36

          5.349

          15

          8.539

          6.321

          6.696

          5.161

          16

          7.64

          6.025

          5.939

          4.944

          17

          6.624

          5.712

          5.089

          4.511

          18

          5.492

          4.702

          4.154

          3.673

          19

          4.258

          3.719

          3.172

          2.855

          20

          3.051

          2.64

          2.276

          1.984

          Drift(mm)

          14

          12

          10

          8

          6

          4

          2

          0

          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

          RCC RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

          COMPOSITE COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

          Fig 6: Storey drift

        3. Stiffness- It is observed that building with composite column having shear wall has maximum stiffness and RCC building without shear wall shows minimum stiffness as evident from the graph below.

        Table 4: Stiffness

        STOREY

        RCC

        (KN/m)

        RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

        (KN/m)

        COMPOSITE

        (KN/m)

        COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

        (KN/m)

        Base

        0

        0

        0

        0

        1

        1268830

        6058615.79

        2062814.746

        7645668.716

        2

        758607.9

        3000926.082

        1056867.359

        3827626.858

        3

        699311.8

        2164984.441

        909335.751

        2803316.998

        4

        683496.6

        1764036.19

        867034.373

        2291679.015

        5

        675719.4

        1532494.518

        851613.092

        1990302.456

        6

        670043.4

        1383341.694

        844533.12

        1793098.3

        7

        665269

        1280102.383

        840342.895

        1654623.847

        8

        661009

        1204476.322

        837254.968

        1551727.315

        9

        657014.2

        1146030.216

        834587.182

        1471074.498

        10

        653038.4

        1098099.278

        831982.827

        1404090.936

        11

        648797.8

        1055899.696

        829154.648

        1344609.27

        12

        643937.4

        1015525.479

        825782.217

        1287617.095

        13

        637982.4

        973324.746

        821441.032

        1228487.908

        14

        630252.7

        925436.317

        815506.837

        1162426.33

        15

        619704

        867387.251

        806971.279

        1084005.722

        16

        604599.5

        793723.815

        794013.26

        986762.678

        17

        581758.1

        697717.153

        772848.449

        862871.81

        18

        544364.9

        571451.642

        734022.261

        703273.343

        19

        474687.1

        405781.908

        649120.953

        497137.915

        20

        308690.8

        197581.503

        419907.19

        242734.859

        STIFFNESS

        STIFFNESS

        1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

        1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

        9000000

        8000000

        7000000

        6000000

        5000000

        4000000

        3000000

        2000000

        1000000

        0

        9000000

        8000000

        7000000

        6000000

        5000000

        4000000

        3000000

        2000000

        1000000

        0

        RCC

        RCC

        RCC WITH SHEAR

        WALL COMPOSITE

        COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

        RCC WITH SHEAR

        WALL COMPOSITE

        COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

        stiffness

        stiffness

        Fig 7: Comparison of stiffness

        Fig 9: Representation of base shear for different models

      2. RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF G+19 BUILDINGS

    1. Lateral displacement- It is observed that displacement is reduced substantially in presence of shear wall. Building with composite column in presence of shear wall showed minimum displacement while the RCC building without shear wall showed maximum displacement.

      Table 6: Lateral displacement by response spectrum

      STOREY

      RCC

      (mm)

      RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

      (mm)

      COMPOSITE

      (mm)

      COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

      (mm)

      1

      4.295

      0.835

      2.682

      0.678

      2

      11.3

      2.413

      7.815

      1.947

      3

      18.614

      4.509

      13.597

      3.601

      4

      25.759

      6.984

      19.422

      5.546

      5

      32.64

      9.725

      25.084

      7.699

      6

      39.241

      12.64

      30.519

      9.993

      7

      45.563

      15.659

      35.711

      12.376

      8

      51.605

      18.726

      40.653

      14.805

      9

      57.358

      21.798

      45.341

      17.25

      10

      62.811

      24.844

      49.767

      19.686

      11

      67.948

      27.842

      53.918

      22.095

      12

      72.752

      30.774

      57.781

      24.464

      13

      77.205

      33.627

      61.341

      26.782

      14

      81.289

      36.393

      64.584

      29.042

      15

      84.985

      39.062

      67.495

      31.235

      16

      88.27

      41.63

      70.056

      33.356

      17

      91.115

      44.092

      72.244

      35.399

      18

      93.486

      46.45

      74.034

      37.362

      19

      95.346

      48.713

      75.414

      39.251

      20

      96.714

      50.871

      76.423

      41.038

      Displacement (mm)

      Displacement (mm)

      120

      100

      80

      60

      40

      20

      0

      120

      100

      80

      60

      40

      20

      0

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

      RCC

      COMPOSITE

      RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

      COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

      RCC

      COMPOSITE

      RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

      COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

      Fig 10: Comparison of displacement by response spectrum method

    2. Lateral drift- There is decrease in drift in building with composite column than building with RCC column. Building with composite column in presence of shear wall showed minimum drift among all the four models

    Table 6: Lateral drift by response spectrum

    STOREY

    RCC

    (mm)

    RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

    (mm)

    COMPOSITE

    (mm)

    COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

    (mm)

    1

    4.295

    0.835

    2.682

    0.678

    2

    7.015

    1.581

    5.136

    1.271

    3

    7.355

    2.103

    5.801

    1.66

    4

    7.243

    2.49

    5.874

    1.956

    5

    7.059

    2.766

    5.764

    2.173

    6

    6.87

    2.957

    5.605

    2.327

    7

    6.683

    3.082

    5.435

    2.433

    8

    6.483

    3.158

    5.259

    2.501

    9

    6.269

    3.197

    5.07

    2.543

    10

    6.033

    3.209

    4.865

    2.564

    11

    5.777

    3.202

    4.641

    2.569

    12

    5.505

    3.177

    4.404

    2.561

    13

    5.214

    3.137

    4.155

    2.539

    14

    4.904

    3.081

    3.891

    2.503

    15

    4.567

    3.007

    3.606

    2.452

    16

    4.18

    2.913

    3.28

    2.383

    17

    3.717

    2.801

    2.891

    2.297

    18

    3.146

    2.673

    2.42

    2.097

    19

    2.436

    2.141

    1.865

    1.592

    20

    1.665

    1.286

    1.304

    0.95

    Drift (mm)

    Drift (mm)

    8

    7

    6

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    0

    8

    7

    6

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    0

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

    RCC

    COMPOSITE

    RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

    COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

    RCC

    COMPOSITE

    RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

    COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

    Fig 11: Comparison of drift by response spectrum method

    4. Stiffness- It is observed that building with composite column having shear wall has maximum stiffness and RCC building without shear wall shows minimum stiffness as evident from the graph below.

    Table 7: Lateral drift by response spectrum

    STOREY

    RCC

    (KN/m)

    RCC WITH SHEAR WALL

    (KN/m)

    COMPOSITE

    (KN/m)

    COMPOSITE WITH SHEAR WALL

    (KN/m)

    Base

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1292503

    6903487.031

    2114177.636

    8671133.005

    2

    774342.8

    3580772.778

    1084590.899

    4557050.78

    3

    714501.7

    2603232.877

    931641.314

    3380857.809

    4

    697616.7

    2100287.83

    885008.033

    2744738.727

    5

    690112.3

    1790395.946

    868738.96

    2341520.377

    6

    684098.4

    1576977.717

    860705.989

    2056837.42

    7

    679372.2

    1422627.942

    857024.369

    1845012.295

    8

    674405.3

    1307964.745

    853859.368

    1683578.05

    9

    670043.8

    1223756.894

    851149.968

    1562652.152

    10

    665350.3

    1163540.138

    848342.788

    1475294.03

    11

    660542.6

    1122271.362

    844653.719

    1415875.442

    12

    656247

    1096152.405

    841706.512

    1378940.327

    13

    651791.5

    1079304.053

    839213.043

    1355954.249

    14

    647886.4

    1065735.302

    837528.542

    1337481.054

    15

    645048.4

    1049062.173

    838233.66

    1313068.196

    16

    641406.4

    1018441.574

    839112.705

    1268493.341

    17

    635356.8

    960059.353

    836997.76

    1186967.922

    18

    622575.9

    855676.38

    826986.996

    1046213.631

    19

    580528.6

    670223.997

    776934.689

    806723.924

    20

    412496.8

    361815.448

    546004.379

    430153.909

    STIFFNESS

    STIFFNESS

    10000000

    10000000

    RCC

    RCC

    8000000

    6000000

    4000000

    RCC WITH SHEAR

    WALL

    COMPOSITE

    8000000

    6000000

    4000000

    RCC WITH SHEAR

    WALL

    COMPOSITE

    2000000

    COMPOSITE WITH

    0 SHEAR WALL

    1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

    2000000

    COMPOSITE WITH

    0 SHEAR WALL

    1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

    stiffness

    stiffness

    Fig 12: Comparison of stiffness by response spectrum method

  4. CONCLUSION

    • From all the above analysis, it is observed that for high rise building of 20 storey, building with composite column is more efficient. It is observed that displacement and drift is reduced substantially and stiffness of the building increases in presence of shear walls. Hence it is concluded that composite column building with shear wall counter seismic force more as compared to other models.

    • In case of RCC framed structure the lateral displacement is very high. It is observed that in presence of shear wall the displacement at top reduces by approx 40% in case of static analysis and 47% in case of response spectrum analysis in both RCC and composite column buildings. Also the building with composite column reduces the displacement by approx 20% as compared to RCC building.

    • Hence the composite column building in presence of shear wall counters the seismic effect more efficiently.

    • Storey-drift is the relative displacement, it means the drift of one level relative to the level below. It is observed that the drift at top is reduced by 13% in presence of shear wall in case of static analysis and 23% in case of response spectrum analysis.

    • Building with composite columns reduces the drift by approx 25% compared to RCC column buildings.

    • The stiffness of the building is more in case of composite column compared to RCC column building. The shear wall in the building makes the building increases the stiffness of the building.

  5. REFERENCE

  1. IS 1893 (part 1): (2002), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards.

  2. IS: 11384, code of practice for composite construction in structural steel and concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1985

  3. CSI Computers and Structures INC. Introductory Tutorial for Etabs: Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of Three-Dimensional Structures 2017

  4. B.C. Punmia, A.K. Jain, 2006, R.C.C Designs, Laxmi Publications New Delhi.

  5. IS-456 2000 plain and reinforced concrete code of practice.

  6. Panchal D.R., and Marathe P.M., Comparative study of R.C.C, Steel and Composite (G+30) Building Institute Of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmadabad, 2011.

  7. Prof. Charantimath, S.S., Prof. Cholekar, Swapnil B, and Birje, Manjunath M. (2014) Comparative Study on Structural Parameter of R.C.C and Composite Building IISTE, ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514, 6(6) 98-109

  8. Kiran Tidke, Rahul Patil and Dr. G.R. Gandhe, Seismic Analysis of Building with and Without Shear Wall, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (JIRSET). Vol.3, pp.17852-17858, October 2016.

  9. N. Venkata Sairam Kumar, R. Surendra Babu and L. Usha Kranti, Shear walls A review, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science

  10. S.G. Satpute and D.B. Kulkarni, Comparative study of reinforced concrete shear wall analysis in multi-storeyed building with openings by nonlinear methods,International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research (IJSCER). Vol.2, pp. 183-193, August 2013.

Leave a Reply

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