A STUDY ON SEISMIC RESPONSES OF REINFORCED CONCRETE … · 2017-08-01 · In the seismic design of...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)Volume 8, Issue 7, July 2017, pp.

Available online at http://http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976

© IAEME Publication

A STUDY ON SEISMIC

REINFORCED CONCRETE

WITH LATERAL FORCE R

Professor

Kumaraguru College of Te

Professor

Balaji Institue of Technology and Science, Lakenpally, Narsampet, Wa

Assistant Professor

Kumaraguru Colleg

ABSTRACT

Today, tall buildings are a worldwide architectural phenomenon and it is a major

challenge to study the impact and performance of tall structures under wind and

seismic loading. In the present work, Time History Analysis and response spectrum

analysis are carried out for a G+19 multistory Reinforced Concrete (RC) framed

building taken from Panchal and Marathe (2011)

building. This RC frame along with three types of lateral force resisting systems such

as brick infill and shear walls in two different types of placements are considered for

the analysis. The influence of the lateral force resisting systems in the reduction of

peak responses such as absolute accelerations, displacements and drifts of the bare

frame under four types of Time History

the SAP2000 software. based on responses of the building. The Linear Time History

Analysis (LTHA) of the frames subjected to four types of THEQ such as

(EC), Kobe (KO), Northridge (NR) a

shows that provision of both models of shear wall considered for the buildings in the

present work reduces the seismic responses effectively and responses are within the

allowable limits prescribed in

lateral load resisting systems is found out for the RC building also by the resp

spectrum analysis of all the three types of models with brick infill and shear wall

provisions. The peak value of inter storey

provision of lateral force resisting systems in the bare frame.

Keyword: Absolute Acceleration, Brick Infill, Drifts, Seismic Responses, Shear

Wall, Time History Analysis

IJCIET/index.asp 1239 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) 2017, pp. 1239–1254, Article ID: IJCIET_08_07_132

http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7

6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

Scopus Indexed

A STUDY ON SEISMIC RESPONSES OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE (RC) BUILDINGS

WITH LATERAL FORCE RESISTING SYST

J.Premalatha

Professor & Head of Department, Civil Engineering,

Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore.

M.Palanisamy,

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,

Balaji Institue of Technology and Science, Lakenpally, Narsampet, Wa

R.Manju

Professor (SRG) , Department of Civil Engineering,

Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore

tall buildings are a worldwide architectural phenomenon and it is a major


In the present work, Time History Analysis and response spectrum

d out for a G+19 multistory Reinforced Concrete (RC) framed

building taken from Panchal and Marathe (2011)1 ,with minor changes made in the


walls in two different types of placements are considered for



of Time History Earth Quakes (THEQ) are found out using


Analysis (LTHA) of the frames subjected to four types of THEQ such as

obe (KO), Northridge (NR) and S Monica (SM) are carried out.



allowable limits prescribed in IS1893 (Part 1) :2002. The effective arrangement of

lateral load resisting systems is found out for the RC building also by the resp


provisions. The peak value of inter storey drifts are reduced by 66.67 % with the

provision of lateral force resisting systems in the bare frame.

Absolute Acceleration, Brick Infill, Drifts, Seismic Responses, Shear

Wall, Time History Analysis.

[email protected]

http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7

RESPONSES OF

(RC) BUILDINGS

ESISTING SYSTEMS

Balaji Institue of Technology and Science, Lakenpally, Narsampet, Warangal

epartment of Civil Engineering,

tall buildings are a worldwide architectural phenomenon and it is a major


In the present work, Time History Analysis and response spectrum

d out for a G+19 multistory Reinforced Concrete (RC) framed

,with minor changes made in the


walls in two different types of placements are considered for



Earth Quakes (THEQ) are found out using


Analysis (LTHA) of the frames subjected to four types of THEQ such as El Centro

are carried out. The responses



. The effective arrangement of

lateral load resisting systems is found out for the RC building also by the response


drifts are reduced by 66.67 % with the

Absolute Acceleration, Brick Infill, Drifts, Seismic Responses, Shear

A Novel Approach fo Treat Sago Industrial Wastewater using Anaerobic Hybrid Reactor (Ahr)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1240 [email protected]

Cite this Article J.Premalatha, M.Palanisamy and R.Manju, A Study on Seismic

Responses of Reinforced Concrete (Rc) Buildings with Lateral Force Resisting

Systems, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(7), 2017, pp.

1239–1254.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7

1. INTRODUCTION Reinforced Concrete (RC) framed buildings are widely used for the construction of multi-

storey buildings in India. Seismic analysis is not considered for most of the buildings

designed. But, it is an effective way of designing a building to consider seismic analysis.

Seismic analysis is carried out for high intensity earthquakes for multi-storey buildings. For

resisting these very high intensity earthquakes in buildings various types of lateral load

resisting systems are adopted. Reinforced concrete (RC) framed building without infill are

usually analyzed and designed as bare frames. But infill wall reduces the displacements, time

period and base shear in a RC frame and it is essential to study the effect of brick infill in the

seismic response of RC frame.3 Provision of shear walls increases the strength and stiffness of

the structure and thus affect the seismic behavior of framed structure4. Shear walls are more

resistant to lateral loads in an irregular structure5. In the seismic design of buildings,

reinforced concrete structural walls, or shear walls, act as major earthquake resisting

members6.

Panchal and Marathe (2011)1 presented a comparative study of G+30 storey commercial

building which is situated in earthquake zone IV. For this work steel concrete composite, steel

and RCC options are used. In the present study, G+19 multi-storey (Fig. 1.) RC framed

building model taken from Panchal & Marathe (2011) with some changes made in the model,

is considered for the seismic analysis. In order to find the effective ways to place the lateral

loads resisting system based on the responses of the building, four types of model buildings

were analyzed using the SAP2000 software .

Following four types of models are considered for the analysis:

• RC framed building with bare frame (BF) .

• RC framed building with brick infill (BI) considered as brick wall model or brick infill model.

• RC framed building with brick infill and shear wall (provided in four corners both in x-and y-

directions of the building and lift area) are considered as model named shear wall – I (SH_1) for

analysis.

• RC framed building with brick infill and shear wall (provided in four corners both in x- and y-

directions of the building, two bays in y- direction and lift area) are considered as model, shear

wall – II (SH_2) for analysis.

a) Shear Wall

Shear walls are one of the excellent means of providing earthquake resistance to multistoried

reinforced concrete building. Behavior of a structure during earthquake motion depends on

the distribution of weight, stiffness and strength in both horizontal and vertical planes of the

building. To reduce the effect of earthquake and to improve the seismic response, RC shear

walls are provided in the RC framed buildings. Structural design of buildings for seismic

loading is primarily concerned with structural safety during major earthquakes. In tall

buildings, it is very important to ensure adequate lateral stiffness to resist the lateral load.

Provision of shear wall in buildings to achieve rigidity has been found to be an effective and

economical method of construction.

Dr.G.L.Sathymoorthy


B. Infill Wall

The effect of masonry infill panel on the response of RC frames subjected to seismic action is

widely recognized and has been subject of numerous experimental investigations, while

several attempts to model it analytically have been reported. Infill behaves like compression

strut between column and beam and compression forces are transferred from one node to

another. The RC moment resisting frames in filled with unreinforced brick masonry walls are

very common in India and in other developing countries. When masonry in fills are

considered to interact with their surrounding frames, the lateral load capacity of the structure

largely increases.

C. Storey Drifts Limitations

As per Clause 7.11.1 of IS 1893 (Part 1) :20022, the peak storey drift in any storey due to

specified design lateral force with partial load factor of 1.0, shall not exceed 0.004 x hs,

where, hs is storey height (3960 mm). So maximum inter-storey drift allowed= 0.004 × 3500 =

14 mm. From the linear time history analysis, the peak storey drift in X and Y directions

should be within the allowable limits. Hence, if the inter-storey drifts is less than the

allowable limit of 16mm, the structure is assumed to be safe.

2. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Present study is focused on the study on effect of lateral force resisting systems in the form of

shear walls and brick infill in RC buildings and to find the effective placement of infill-brick

walls and shear walls for the structural performance enhancement of RC framed buildings to

resist the lateral loads. By this study the placement of lateral force resisting system to bring

down the peak storey drift of the building frame, due to higher intensity earthquakes, within

the permissible limits as prescribed in IS 1893 (Part 1) :20027 is arrived.

3. STRUCTURAL MODELING. The structural modelling and analysis of the building is done using SAP 2000 software

package to resist high intensity seismic loads. Investigation is carried out to assess the

performance of the idealized (G+19) storied typical framed structure subjected to four types

of time histories earthquakes such as El Centro (EC), Kobe (KO), Northridge (NR) and S-

MONICA (SM) with their Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) normalized to 0.35g and

response spectrum analysis (assumed as building located in Chennai). Fig. 1. shows a typical

floor plan and Figure. 2. shows a three dimensional view of a computer model of the building

developed using the structural analysis software SAP 2000. The special moment-resisting

frames of bare frame are with seven-bay concrete special moment-resisting frames in X

direction and eight-bay concrete special moment-resisting frames in Y direction. The material

properties of the building are Fe415 steel and M30 grade of concrete for columns and M20

grade of concrete for main and secondary beams respectively. The basic parameters

considered for the analysis, such as general description of the building are given in the

Table 1.

For all the models the sizes are curtailed at every 10 story to achieve economy and reduce

dead weight of the structure and the size of the members in building model as given in the



Table 2. The dead loads and live loads (Table 3) as per IS875 (Part 1 and 2)7,8

are used in the

frame analysis..

Table 3 DL and LL Loads on slab

Roof

Dead load 1.5 kN/m2

Live load 1.5 kN/m2

Typical floor

Live load in office area 4.0 kN/m2

Live load in passage area 4.0 kN/m2

Live load in urinals 2.0 kN/m2

Floor finish load 1.5 kN/m2

Stair case loading 4.0 kN/m2

A. Building Model Description with Lateral Load Resisting Systems

The numerical modelling of the building is done to resist high intensity seismic loads.

Investigation is carried out to assess the performance of the idealized (G+19) storied typical

framed structure subjected to four types of time histories earthquakes such as El Centro

(EC), Kobe (KO), North Ridge (NR) and S_Monica (SM) with their (PGA) normalized to

0.35g and response spectrum analysis (assumed as building located in Chennai). The special

moment-resisting frames of bare frame are with seven-bay concrete special moment-resisting

frames in X direction and eight-bay concrete special moment-resisting frames in Y direction.

Model of the building developed using the structural analysis software SAP2000.

Reinforced Concrete framed building without infill is considered as bare frame as shown

in Fig. 2. (Isometric view of the building - Bare frame. RC framed building with brick infill is

considered as brick wall as shown in Fig. 3. (Isometric view of the building - Brick infill

wall). RC framed building with brick infill and shear wall (provided in four corners both in x

and y directions of the building and lift area) is considered as shear wall_1, as shown in Fig. 4

(Plan of the building - shear wall_1) and Fig. 5. (Isometric view of the building - shear

wall_1). RC framed building with brick infill and shear wall (provided in four corners both in

x and y directions of the building, two bays in y direction and lift area) is considered as shear

wall_2 as shown in Fig. 6. (Plan of the building – shear wall_2) and Fig. 7. (Perspective

toggle view of the building – shear wall_2).

Dr.G.L.Sathymoorthy


Figure 1 Plan of the building

Figure 2 Isometric view of the building-Bare frame

Figure 3 Isometric view of the building-Brick infill wall

Figure 4 Plan of the building – Shear Wall_1



Figure 5 Isometric view of the building shear wall_1

Urinals&

Toilets

Office area

301.5 sq.m

42

Office area

301.5 sq.mLift

Lift

24

Urinals&

Toilets

Down Up

Urinals

&

Toilets

Urinals

&

ToiletsDown Up

W

W

D

D

D

D

SHEAR W ALL -II

Figure 6 Plan of the building – Shear Wall_2

Figure 7 Perspective toggle view of the building – Shear Wall_2

As per IS 1893: 2002 (part 1), clause 7.6.22, The approximate fundamental natural period

of vibration (T) in seconds, of all other buildings, including moment-resisting frame buildings

with brick infill panels, may be estimated by the empirical expression: 0.09*h/√d where h=

Height of building, in as defined in 7.6.l and d= Base dimension of the building at the plinth

level, in m, along the considered direction of the lateral force. Here, for this building. The

time period and natural frequency of the building are 0.77 and 1.29 respectively, are the

dynamic characteristics of the building. The following are the assumptions made during the

analysis of the structure:

• The bottom supports at base level are assumed as fixed.

Dr.G.L.Sathymoorthy


• The entire mass of the structure is assumed to be uniformly distributed at the floor

levels.

• The storey height and floor mass are assumed to be uniform across the height of the

building.

4. TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS AND ITS RESPONSES

Among the four THEQ earthquakes, peak responses such as absolute accelerations,

displacements and drifts are found out for the models BF, BI, SH_1 and SH_2 and given in

the Table 4 and also represented in graphs in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. The responses shows that

provision of both models of shear wall in buildings reduces responses effectively and

responses are within allowable limits. Practically the bare frame RC structures are not used

and they are provided with either brick infill or shear walls and consequently the total mass of

these frames also increase which leads to increase in the absolute acceleration values.

Therefore the comparison study is made only for the absolute acceleration values for three

types of frames such as BI, SH_I and SH_2 and the accelerations in the bare frame are not

considered for the study.

Figure 8 Absolute acceleration Vs. Storey for 4 types of THEQ for BF

Figure 9 Displacement Vs. Storey for 4 types of THEQ for BF



Figure 10 Inter-storey drifts Vs. Storey for 4 types of THEQ for BF

Figure 11 Absolute acceleration Vs. Storey for 4 types of THEQ for BI

Figure 12 Displacement Vs. Storey for 4 types of THEQ for BI

Dr.G.L.Sathymoorthy


Figure 13 Inter-storey drifts Vs.storey for 4 types of THEQ for BI

Figure 14 Absolute acceleration Vs. Storey for 4 types of THEQ for SH_1

Figure 15 Displacement Vs. Storey for 4 types of THEQ for SH_1



Figure 16 Inter-storey drifts Vs. Storey for 4 types of THEQ for SH_1

Figure 17 Absolute acceleration Vs. Storey for 4 types of THEQ for SH_2

Figure 18 Displacement Vs. Storey for 4 types of THEQ for SH_2

Dr.G.L.Sathymoorthy


Figure 19 Inter-storey drifts Vs. Storey for 4 types THEQ for SH_2

5. RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS (RSA) AND ITS RESPONSES Responses spectrum analyses are carried out for RCC building, assumed to be located at

Chennai. The corresponding zone and zone factor are taken from IS 1893(Part 1):2002. The

peak responses of the building such as absolute accelerations, displacements and drifts are

considered for the models BI, SH_1 and SH_2 and they are compared with the model BF as

given in the Table 5 and its responses are shown in the Fig. 20. to Fig. 22. The responses

shows that provision of both models of shear wall in buildings reduces responses effectively

and responses are within allowable limits. The effective model responses of the building for

response spectrum analysis are found to be the shear wall_1.

Figure 20 Accelerations Vs. Storey for RSA



Figure 21 Displacements Vs. Storey for RSA

Figure 22 Inter-storey drifts Vs. Storey for RSA

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Provision of shear walls and brick infill have considerably reduced the displacements

and inter storey drifts of the model RC bare frame. The peak storey drift for the efficient

model shear wall type_I (SH-I) and shear wall type-II (SH-II) arrived by this study is

within the permissible limits as prescribed in Clause 7.11.1 of IS1893 (Part 1) :2002.

Considering the cost component involved in more number shear walls provided in SH-2

model than the Shear wall type-I (SH-I) model, the later one can be taken as the effective and

cost efficient type of RC frame model for the bench mark problem considered in the present

work. The seismic responses such as absolute accelerations, displacements and inter-storey

drifts for all four types of model frames subjected to four types of time histories earthquakes

such as El Centro (EC), Kobe (KO), Northridge (NR) and S-MONICA (SM) are given in

Table 6 to Table 9.

6. CONCLUSIONS

• The peak responses such as absolute accelerations, displacements and drifts for the

RC Building models BI, SH-1 and SH-2 with 3 kinds of lateral force resisting system

against the four THEQ earthquakes such as Electro, Kobe, Northridge and S_monica,

on G+19 multistory RC framed structure are presented(Table 6 to Table 9).

Dr.G.L.Sathymoorthy


• Presence of shear walls and brick in fills have significant influence on the seismic

behavior of RC frame (Table 4, Table 5).

• The peak storey drift for the bare frame is 0.033 m which is not satisfying the

permissible limits prescribed as in IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002. The responses show that

provision of both models of shear wall SH-1 and SH-2 in buildings reduce the

responses effectively and the peak storey drifts are within the allowable limits. The

peak storey drift for the model shear wall SH-1 is reduced to 0.011m (Table 4) which

is within the permissible limits.

• When compared with the bare frame , 66.67 % reduction in the peak storey drift is

observed for the efficient frame model SH-1 with shear walls (Table 4).

• Even though the peak inter-storey drift is less in the SH-2 model , considering also the

cost components of the building, SH-I model is found to be the most effective and cost

efficient model among all the 4 models studied under seismic forces.

• From the response spectrum analysis for the 3 types RC building models such as BI,

SH-1 and SH-2, it is observed that the performance of the shear wall type_I (SH-I) is

found to be more efficient than the other 3 types of models and its responses are found

to be within the allowable limits.

• Results of response spectrum analysis of all the 4 models show that, when compared

with the bare frame, the seismic response of the RC frame in terms of displacements

and storey drifts are considerably reduced in the models BI with brick infills , SH-I

and SH-2 provided with shear walls.

Table 4 Peak responses of different models of RCC structures for time history analysis

Absolute accelerations Displacements Inter-storey drifts

BF BI SH_1 SH_2 BF BI SH_1 SH_2 BF BI SH_1 SH_2

14.85 20.86 22.46 15.60 0.452 0.189 0.171 0.117 0.010 0.004 0.005 0.003

13.71 20.10 21.73 14.91 0.442 0.184 0.166 0.114 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.003

12.23 19.34 21.00 14.20 0.431 0.180 0.162 0.110 0.013 0.005 0.005 0.004

10.19 18.41 20.17 13.40 0.419 0.174 0.156 0.107 0.014 0.006 0.006 0.004

9.13 17.55 19.28 12.57 0.405 0.168 0.150 0.102 0.015 0.007 0.007 0.005

10.56 16.71 18.30 11.71 0.390 0.161 0.143 0.097 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.005

11.31 15.84 17.18 11.40 0.374 0.152 0.136 0.092 0.020 0.009 0.008 0.006

10.90 14.95 16.00 10.96 0.354 0.143 0.127 0.086 0.025 0.010 0.009 0.006

10.26 13.97 14.79 10.34 0.330 0.134 0.118 0.080 0.028 0.010 0.010 0.007

9.91 12.94 13.61 10.16 0.301 0.124 0.109 0.073 0.029 0.010 0.010 0.007

9.96 12.47 12.54 9.90 0.272 0.113 0.099 0.066 0.027 0.011 0.010 0.007

9.68 11.91 11.59 9.59 0.245 0.103 0.089 0.060 0.023 0.011 0.010 0.007

10.18 11.25 10.61 9.14 0.222 0.092 0.078 0.053 0.026 0.011 0.011 0.007

10.36 10.50 9.61 8.54 0.195 0.081 0.068 0.046 0.029 0.011 0.011 0.007

9.92 9.69 8.52 7.89 0.166 0.070 0.057 0.039 0.029 0.011 0.011 0.007

8.88 8.78 7.41 7.10 0.137 0.059 0.046 0.032 0.031 0.010 0.010 0.007

7.30 7.79 6.35 6.16 0.106 0.049 0.036 0.025 0.033 0.010 0.010 0.007

5.33 6.78 5.23 5.30 0.073 0.038 0.026 0.018 0.032 0.010 0.010 0.007

4.13 5.72 4.85 4.92 0.041 0.028 0.016 0.011 0.028 0.013 0.009 0.006

4.44 4.48 4.62 4.76 0.013 0.015 0.007 0.005 0.013 0.015 0.007 0.005

Note: As per Clause no. 7.11.1 of IS 1893: Part 1:2002, the peak storey drift in any storey shall not exceed 0.004 x hs, where, hs are

storey height (3500 mm). So allowable inter-storey drift allowed = 0.014m



Table 5 Peak responses for different models of RCC structures for response spectrum analysis

Absolute accelerations Displacements Inter-storey drifts

BF BI SH_1 SH_2 BF BI SH_1 SH_2 BF BI SH_1 SH_2

0.325 0.573 0.587 0.587 0.0130 0.0054 0.0043 0.0046 9.9E-05 1.2E-04 1.2E-04 1.2E-04

0.287 0.553 0.558 0.559 0.0129 0.0053 0.0042 0.0044 7.1E-05 1.3E-04 1.2E-04 1.2E-04

0.273 0.531 0.531 0.532 0.0129 0.0051 0.0041 0.0043 1.3E-04 1.5E-04 1.3E-04 1.4E-04

0.269 0.507 0.505 0.506 0.0127 0.0050 0.0040 0.0042 2.4E-04 1.8E-04 1.5E-04 1.6E-04

0.260 0.484 0.481 0.482 0.0125 0.0048 0.0038 0.0040 3.7E-04 2.0E-04 1.7E-04 1.8E-04

0.256 0.461 0.460 0.460 0.0121 0.0046 0.0036 0.0038 4.9E-04 2.3E-04 1.9E-04 2.0E-04

0.255 0.440 0.440 0.441 0.0116 0.0044 0.0034 0.0036 6.1E-04 2.5E-04 2.1E-04 2.2E-04

0.249 0.420 0.421 0.421 0.0110 0.0041 0.0032 0.0034 7.2E-04 2.6E-04 2.2E-04 2.4E-04

0.243 0.401 0.401 0.401 0.0103 0.0039 0.0030 0.0032 8.0E-04 2.8E-04 2.4E-04 2.5E-04

0.241 0.382 0.380 0.380 0.0095 0.0036 0.0028 0.0029 8.2E-04 2.9E-04 2.5E-04 2.6E-04

0.233 0.362 0.358 0.358 0.0087 0.0033 0.0025 0.0027 8.0E-04 3.0E-04 2.6E-04 2.7E-04

0.222 0.343 0.335 0.336 0.0079 0.0030 0.0023 0.0024 8.4E-04 3.1E-04 2.6E-04 2.8E-04

0.217 0.322 0.314 0.314 0.0071 0.0027 0.0020 0.0021 8.9E-04 3.1E-04 2.7E-04 2.8E-04

0.212 0.301 0.292 0.293 0.0062 0.0024 0.0017 0.0018 9.5E-04 3.2E-04 2.7E-04 2.9E-04

0.201 0.278 0.269 0.269 0.0052 0.0021 0.0015 0.0015 1.0E-03 3.2E-04 2.7E-04 2.8E-04

0.188 0.252 0.241 0.241 0.0042 0.0018 0.0012 0.0013 1.0E-03 3.2E-04 2.7E-04 2.8E-04

0.175 0.221 0.206 0.205 0.0032 0.0014 0.0009 0.0010 1.0E-03 3.1E-04 2.6E-04 2.7E-04

0.151 0.185 0.162 0.162 0.0022 0.0011 0.0007 0.0007 9.7E-04 3.1E-04 2.5E-04 2.6E-04

0.102 0.142 0.111 0.110 0.0012 0.0008 0.0004 0.0004 8.1E-04 3.8E-04 2.4E-04 2.5E-04

0.037 0.080 0.051 0.051 0.0004 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 3.8E-04 4.4E-04 1.8E-04 2.0E-04

Note: As per clause 7.11.1 of IS1893 (Part 1):2002, the peak storey drift in any storey shall not exceed

0.004 x hs, where, hs is storey height (3500 mm). So allowable inter-storey drift allowed = 0.014m

Table 6 Responses for RCC Bare frame

Responses Absolute acceleration Displacements Inter-storey drifts

Storey EC KO NR SM peaks EC KO NR SM peaks EC KO NR SM peaks

20 7.21 14.85 7.87 2.51 14.85 0.165 0.452 0.306 0.066 0.45 0.003 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.010

19 5.21 13.71 6.64 1.89 13.71 0.162 0.442 0.304 0.064 0.44 0.004 0.011 0.001 0.001 0.011

18 4.87 12.23 6.24 1.94 12.23 0.158 0.431 0.303 0.063 0.43 0.005 0.013 0.0003 0.002 0.013

17 4.60 10.19 6.39 2.46 10.19 0.153 0.419 0.303 0.061 0.42 0.005 0.014 0.002 0.002 0.014

16 5.15 9.13 6.19 2.04 9.13 0.148 0.405 0.301 0.060 0.40 0.005 0.015 0.006 0.003 0.015

15 5.14 10.56 6.88 2.10 10.56 0.143 0.390 0.295 0.057 0.39 0.006 0.016 0.010 0.003 0.016

14 4.03 11.31 7.43 2.63 11.31 0.137 0.374 0.286 0.054 0.37 0.007 0.020 0.013 0.002 0.020

13 4.50 10.90 7.99 2.22 10.90 0.130 0.354 0.272 0.052 0.35 0.008 0.025 0.017 0.003 0.025

12 4.59 10.26 7.81 1.68 10.26 0.121 0.330 0.256 0.049 0.33 0.004 0.028 0.018 0.004 0.028

11 4.68 9.91 6.73 1.94 9.91 0.117 0.301 0.237 0.045 0.30 0.006 0.029 0.020 0.004 0.029

10 4.87 9.96 5.89 1.92 9.96 0.111 0.272 0.217 0.041 0.27 0.007 0.027 0.021 0.004 0.027

9 4.80 9.68 4.95 1.86 9.68 0.103 0.245 0.196 0.037 0.25 0.009 0.023 0.022 0.004 0.023

8 4.66 10.18 5.00 1.39 10.18 0.095 0.222 0.174 0.033 0.22 0.010 0.026 0.023 0.004 0.026

7 4.64 10.36 5.55 1.61 10.36 0.084 0.195 0.152 0.029 0.20 0.011 0.029 0.024 0.004 0.029

6 5.04 9.92 5.66 1.60 9.92 0.073 0.166 0.128 0.025 0.17 0.013 0.029 0.025 0.005 0.029

5 5.25 8.88 5.22 1.38 8.88 0.061 0.137 0.103 0.021 0.14 0.014 0.031 0.025 0.005 0.031

4 4.94 7.30 4.29 1.77 7.30 0.047 0.106 0.077 0.016 0.11 0.014 0.033 0.025 0.005 0.033

Dr.G.L.Sathymoorthy


3 4.12 5.33 3.10 1.61 5.33 0.032 0.073 0.052 0.011 0.07 0.014 0.032 0.024 0.005 0.032

2 3.42 4.13 3.05 1.60 4.13 0.018 0.041 0.029 0.006 0.04 0.012 0.028 0.020 0.004 0.028

1 3.34 4.44 3.34 2.75 4.44 0.006 0.013 0.009 0.002 0.01 0.006 0.013 0.009 0.002 0.013

Table 7 Responses for RCC Brick Infill model

Responses Absolute acceleration Displacements Inter-storey drifts

Storey EC KO NR SM peaks EC KO NR SM peaks EC KO NR SM peaks

20 14.68 20.86 9.05 2.99 20.86 0.12 0.19 0.08 0.010 0.19 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.0003 0.004

19 13.84 20.10 8.75 2.47 20.10 0.12 0.18 0.08 0.010 0.18 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.0003 0.005

18 13.02 19.34 8.50 1.81 19.34 0.12 0.18 0.08 0.009 0.18 0.004 0.005 0.002 0.0003 0.005

17 12.50 18.41 8.31 1.35 18.41 0.11 0.17 0.08 0.009 0.17 0.004 0.006 0.003 0.0003 0.006

16 11.99 17.55 8.06 1.18 17.55 0.11 0.17 0.07 0.009 0.17 0.005 0.007 0.003 0.0002 0.007

15 11.42 16.71 7.76 1.16 16.71 0.10 0.16 0.07 0.008 0.16 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.0002 0.008

14 11.11 15.84 7.36 1.33 15.84 0.10 0.15 0.07 0.008 0.15 0.005 0.009 0.004 0.0003 0.009

13 11.07 14.95 6.83 1.80 14.95 0.09 0.14 0.06 0.008 0.14 0.005 0.010 0.004 0.0003 0.010

12 10.97 13.97 6.17 2.18 13.97 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.008 0.13 0.006 0.010 0.005 0.0004 0.010

11 10.62 12.94 5.49 2.36 12.94 0.08 0.12 0.05 0.007 0.12 0.006 0.010 0.005 0.0004 0.010

10 10.19 12.47 4.78 2.34 12.47 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.007 0.11 0.007 0.011 0.005 0.0004 0.011

9 9.57 11.91 4.82 2.20 11.91 0.07 0.10 0.04 0.006 0.10 0.007 0.011 0.005 0.0005 0.011

8 8.99 11.25 4.80 2.24 11.25 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.006 0.09 0.007 0.011 0.005 0.0005 0.011

7 8.51 10.50 4.69 2.49 10.50 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.005 0.08 0.007 0.011 0.005 0.0005 0.011

6 8.09 9.69 4.49 2.63 9.69 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.005 0.07 0.007 0.011 0.005 0.0005 0.011

5 7.57 8.78 4.17 2.64 8.78 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.004 0.06 0.007 0.010 0.005 0.0006 0.010

4 6.90 7.79 3.75 2.51 7.79 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.004 0.05 0.007 0.010 0.004 0.0007 0.010

3 6.09 6.78 3.25 2.29 6.78 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.003 0.04 0.007 0.010 0.004 0.0007 0.010

2 5.04 5.72 3.31 2.14 5.72 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.002 0.03 0.009 0.013 0.005 0.0010 0.013

1 3.65 4.48 3.40 2.13 4.48 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.02 0.011 0.015 0.006 0.0013 0.015

Table 8 Responses for RCC Shear wall_1

RE Absolute acceleration Displacements Inter-storey drifts

Storey EC KO NR SM PK EC KO NR SM PK EC KO NR SM PK

20 20.4 22.5 12.0 3.3 22.5 0.149 0.171 0.078 0.008 0.171 0.004 0.005 0.002 2.8E-4 0.005

19 19.2 21.7 11.3 2.8 21.7 0.145 0.166 0.075 0.008 0.166 0.004 0.005 0.002 2.8E-4 0.005

18 18.1 21.0 10.6 2.3 21.0 0.141 0.162 0.073 0.008 0.162 0.005 0.005 0.003 3.2E-4 0.005

17 17.4 20.2 9.7 1.9 20.2 0.136 0.156 0.070 0.008 0.156 0.005 0.006 0.003 3.3E-4 0.006

16 16.6 19.3 8.9 1.4 19.3 0.131 0.150 0.067 0.007 0.150 0.006 0.007 0.003 3.4E-4 0.007

15 15.7 18.3 8.2 1.5 18.3 0.125 0.143 0.063 0.007 0.143 0.007 0.008 0.004 3.7E-4 0.008

14 14.8 17.2 7.6 1.7 17.2 0.118 0.136 0.060 0.006 0.136 0.007 0.008 0.004 3.7E-4 0.008

13 13.7 16.0 7.0 1.9 16.0 0.111 0.127 0.056 0.006 0.127 0.008 0.009 0.004 4.2E-4 0.009

12 12.7 14.8 6.7 2.1 14.8 0.103 0.118 0.051 0.006 0.118 0.008 0.010 0.004 4.5E-4 0.010

11 11.6 13.6 6.5 2.3 13.6 0.095 0.109 0.047 0.005 0.109 0.009 0.010 0.005 4.1E-4 0.010

10 10.7 12.5 6.2 2.3 12.5 0.086 0.099 0.042 0.005 0.099 0.009 0.010 0.005 3.6E-4 0.010

9 10.3 11.6 5.8 2.3 11.6 0.077 0.089 0.038 0.004 0.089 0.009 0.010 0.005 3.1E-4 0.010

8 9.8 10.6 5.4 2.4 10.6 0.068 0.078 0.033 0.004 0.078 0.009 0.011 0.004 3.9E-4 0.011

7 9.1 9.6 5.0 2.4 9.6 0.059 0.068 0.029 0.004 0.068 0.009 0.011 0.004 4.6E-4 0.011

6 8.3 8.5 4.6 2.4 8.5 0.050 0.057 0.024 0.003 0.057 0.009 0.011 0.004 5.2E-4 0.011

5 7.4 7.3 4.1 2.5 7.4 0.040 0.046 0.020 0.003 0.046 0.009 0.010 0.004 5.6E-4 0.010

4 6.4 6.0 3.5 2.5 6.4 0.031 0.036 0.016 0.002 0.036 0.009 0.010 0.004 5.8E-4 0.010

3 5.2 5.2 2.9 2.4 5.2 0.023 0.026 0.011 0.002 0.026 0.008 0.010 0.004 5.9E-4 0.010

2 4.0 4.8 2.8 2.6 4.8 0.014 0.016 0.007 0.001 0.016 0.008 0.009 0.004 6.0E-4 0.009

1 3.5 4.6 3.1 3.1 4.6 0.006 0.007 0.003 4.7E-4 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.003 4.7E-4 0.007



Table 9 Responses for RCC Shear wall_2

RE ABSOLUTE ACCELERATION DISPLACEMENTS INTER-STOREY DRIFTS

S EC KO NR SM PK EC KO NR SM PK EC KO NR SM PK

20 13.34 15.60 10.23 3.44 15.60 0.110 0.117 0.068 0.008 0.117 0.003 0.003 0.002 2.6E-4 0.003

19 12.70 14.91 9.58 2.86 14.91 0.107 0.114 0.066 0.008 0.114 0.003 0.003 0.002 2.6E-4 0.003

18 12.18 14.20 8.90 2.23 14.20 0.104 0.110 0.064 0.008 0.110 0.003 0.004 0.002 2.9E-4 0.004

17 11.97 13.40 8.14 1.58 13.40 0.101 0.107 0.062 0.007 0.107 0.004 0.004 0.002 3.2E-4 0.004

16 11.90 12.57 7.43 1.23 12.57 0.098 0.102 0.060 0.007 0.102 0.004 0.005 0.003 3.2E-4 0.005

15 11.71 11.68 7.22 1.47 11.71 0.093 0.097 0.057 0.007 0.097 0.005 0.005 0.003 3.5E-4 0.005

14 11.40 10.84 6.92 1.83 11.40 0.089 0.092 0.054 0.006 0.092 0.005 0.006 0.003 3.9E-4 0.006

13 10.96 10.19 6.50 2.11 10.96 0.084 0.086 0.051 0.006 0.086 0.006 0.006 0.004 4.2E-4 0.006

12 10.34 9.54 5.98 2.16 10.34 0.078 0.080 0.047 0.006 0.080 0.006 0.007 0.004 4.5E-4 0.007

11 10.16 8.82 5.44 2.25 10.16 0.072 0.073 0.043 0.005 0.073 0.006 0.007 0.004 4.7E-4 0.007

10 9.90 8.11 4.89 2.32 9.90 0.066 0.066 0.039 0.005 0.066 0.007 0.007 0.004 3.5E-4 0.007

9 9.59 7.70 4.83 2.24 9.59 0.059 0.060 0.035 0.004 0.060 0.007 0.007 0.004 3.8E-4 0.007

8 9.14 7.30 4.68 2.19 9.14 0.052 0.053 0.031 0.004 0.053 0.007 0.007 0.004 4.1E-4 0.007

7 8.54 6.82 4.47 2.58 8.54 0.045 0.046 0.027 0.004 0.046 0.007 0.007 0.004 4.4E-4 0.007

6 7.89 6.46 4.18 2.83 7.89 0.038 0.039 0.023 0.003 0.039 0.007 0.007 0.004 4.8E-4 0.007

5 7.10 6.09 3.77 2.85 7.10 0.031 0.032 0.018 0.003 0.032 0.007 0.007 0.004 4.2E-4 0.007

4 6.16 5.70 3.27 2.74 6.16 0.025 0.025 0.014 0.002 0.025 0.007 0.007 0.004 5.0E-4 0.007

3 5.10 5.30 2.82 2.71 5.30 0.018 0.018 0.010 0.002 0.018 0.007 0.007 0.004 5.9E-4 0.007

2 3.96 4.92 2.87 2.57 4.92 0.011 0.011 0.006 0.001 0.011 0.006 0.006 0.004 6.6E-4 0.006

1 3.42 4.76 3.19 2.98 4.76 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.003 5.5E-4 0.005

REFERENCES

[1] Panchal, D R., and Marathe, P M.(2011), “Comparative Study of R.C.C, Steel and

Composite (G+30 Storey) Building”, international conference 2 on current trends in

technology - ‘Nuicone – 2011’, Institute of technology, Nirma university, Ahmedabad.

[2] IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures”, Bureau of

Indian standards, New Delhi, 2002.

[3] Wakchaure M.R., Ped S.P (August2012 ), “Earthquake Analysis of High Rise Building

with and without infilled walls”, International journal of Engineering and Innovative

Technology, vol.2, Issue2, PP:89-93.

[4] Shahzad Jamil Sardar, Umesh N., Karadi (Sep2013), “Effect of change in shear wall

location on storey drift of multistory building subjected to lateral loads International

Journal of Innovative research in science and Technology Vol :2, Iss:9. Page :4241-4259.

[5] Ravikanth Chittiprolu, Ramacharla Pradeep Kumar (June2014), “ Significance of Shear

Wall in Highrise Irregular Buildngs”, International Journal of Education and Applied

Research, Vol.4, Issue Spl :2, pp: 35-37.

[6] P. P. Chandurkar, Dr. P. S. Pajgade(May - June 2013), “Seismic Analysis of RCC

Building with and Without Shear Wall”. International Journal of Modern Engineering

Research (IJMER) www.ijmer.com, Vol. 3, Issue. 3, pp-1805-1810.

[7] IS 875 (Part 1):1987, “Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for

buildings and structures”, Part 1, Dead loads, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi,

1989.

[8] IS 875 (Part 2):1987, “Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for

buildings and structures”, Part 2 Live loads, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, 1989.

[9] Avinash A R, Rajeshprasad B S and Dr.Kiran Kamath A Comparative Study on Seismic

Fragility Assessment of RCC Structure With Varying Soft Storey Level With and Without

Infill International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(5), 2017, pp. 395–403.

[10] Prince Kumar and Sandeep Nasier, An Analytic and Constructive Approach to Control

Seismic Vibrations in Buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 7(5), 2016, pp.103–110

A STUDY ON SEISMIC RESPONSES OF REINFORCED CONCRETE … · 2017-08-01 · In the seismic design of...

Documents

Transcript of A STUDY ON SEISMIC RESPONSES OF REINFORCED CONCRETE … · 2017-08-01 · In the seismic design of...