COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIF FERENT FRAMING SYSTEM FOR MULTI … · limit states, lateral stiffness is...

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT FRAMING SYSTEM FOR MULTI

STOREY COMPOSITE BUILDING WITH IRREGULAR GEOMETRY

Anitha K1, Rajesh S

2

Assistant Professor1,2

,Department of Civil Engineering 1,2

BIST, BIHER, Bharath University

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

When a multi storey building is subjected to lateral or torsional deflections under the

action of fluctuating wind loads, the resulting oscillatory movement can induce a wide range of

responses in the building’s occupants from mild discomfort. To satisfy strength and serviceability

limit states, lateral stiffness is a major consideration in the design of multi storey buildings. The

simple parameter that is used to estimate the lateral stiffness of a building is the drift index.

Different structural forms of tall buildings can be used to improve the lateral stiffness and to

reduce the drift index. This study is conducted for braced frame structures. Bracing is a highly

efficient and economical method of resisting lateral forces in a frame structure because the

diagonals work in axial stress and therefore minimum member sizes are required in providing the

stiffness and strength against horizontal shear.In this study, ordinary moment resisting steel frame

and three different types of bracing systems have been investigated for the use in multi storey

composite building in order to provide lateral stiffness and the performance of the building has

been evaluated in terms of lateral storey displacement, storey drift, and steel weight as well as

axial force and bending moment in columns at different storey level. The reduction in lateral

displacement has been found out for different types of bracing system in comparison to building

with no bracing. From the present study, it has been found that the concentric (X) bracing reduces

more lateral displacement and thus significantly contributes to greater structural stiffness to the

structure and lesser structural steel weight has been exposed.For the application of analysis a

commercial (Office) building of (G+10) is considered as a case study. The plan of the building is

32.5 m x 52 m. The height of the building is (GFL+10) (4 + (9 x 3) + (2.5-staircase head room)) =

33.5m and below ground 3 m. The analysis of the structure is done using ETABS software. Loads

such as imposed load, seismic load, and wind load were calculated and applied as per Indian

codes. The location of the building is taken as Chennai. The zone factor is III and the basic wind

speed is 50 m/s. The scale factor of the building is 1.4 and 0.78 along X and Y directions

respectively.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

To accommodate the continuous urban sprawl, there is a need to construct multi storey

and tall buildings. A multi storey and tall building may be defined as a building whose design is

governed by the lateral forces induced due to wind and earthquake. The design takes care of the

requirements of strength, rigidity and stability. The structural system designed to carry vertical

load may not have the capacity to resist lateral load or even if it has, the design for lateral load

will increase the structural cost substantially with increase in number of storey.A structural steel

framed building is a good choice for many reasons[1-6]. Steel is a very strong material with a

high strength to weight ratio, and as it is shop fabricated, it lends itself to maintain tight

tolerances. Steel framed buildings also give Designers and Engineers flexibility when it comes to

International Journal of Pure and Applied MathematicsVolume 119 No. 12 2018, 8439-8458ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version)url: http://www.ijpam.euSpecial Issue ijpam.eu

8439

design and layout. It also giving the owner a range of options depending on their needs. Steel

beams and columns are the main components in almost all structural steel frames, and are used to

carry and distribute loads for the entire building. Steel decking is used for floors, usually in

conjunction with a concrete topping. Such a system is known as composite decking. Steel decking

is also used for the roof deck. There are different types of connections, either bolted or welded,

and various types of miscellaneous steel plates, bracings, angles and channels that will complete

the system[7-11].

1.2 ADVANTAGES OF BRACINGS

Steel braced frame is one of the structural systems used to resist lateral loads in multistoried

buildings. Steel bracing is economical, easy to erect, occupies less space and has flexibility to

design for meeting the required strength and stiffness. Braced frames are often used to resist

lateral loads but braces can interfere with architectural features. The steel braces are usually

placed in vertically aligned spans. This system allows obtaining a great increase of stiffness with

a minimal added weight[12-16], and so it is very effective for existing structure for which the

poor lateral stiffness is the main problem. Bracings are usually provided to increase stiffness and

stability of the structure under lateral loading and also to reduce lateral displacement

significantly.

1.3 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

To evaluate the optimized use of steel section properties with higher loading in multi storey

building. To control the lateral displacement with economical bracing system to a (G+10)

building, located in seismic zone III. To create 3D building model with moment frame system as

well as shear frame system and also to study the influence of different bracing system.

The parameters like storey drift, storey shear, moment and displacement are done by using

standard package ETABS. The moment frame system and the shear frame system with different

bracing results. Cost effective frame systems for multi storey composite buildings[17-24].

1.4 STRUCTURAL MODELLING

A model must represent the 3D characteristics of building, including mass distribution, strength,

stiffness and deformability. This study is based on frames which are plane and orthogonal with

storey heights and bay widths. Beams and columns are modeled by 3D frame elements. To obtain

the bending moments and forces at the beam and column faces beam-column joints are modeled

by giving end offsets to the frame elements. The beam-column joints are as considered to be rigid

for ordinary moment resisting frames[25-33]. The column end at foundation assumed as fixed for

all the models in this study. By assigning ‘diaphragm’ action at each floor level, the structural

effect of slabs due to their in-plane stiffness is taken into account. The mass/weight contribution

of slab is modelled separately on the supporting beams. Modelling of structural elements for this

study is given in Table 1.1

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

8440

Table 1.1 Modelling of structural elements

Element Characteristics

Beams I-sections

Columns I-sections

Joints (Braced) Pinned

Joints (Moment resisting frames) Rigid

Deck slab Diaphragm Action (Ignoring out of

plane action)

Braces Pipe-section (Moment release at

start and end of braces)

1.5ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING

1.5.1GENERAL

The analysis is performed by using ETABS software, which is a three dimensional

software used for analysis and design of buildings. It uses finite element method for analysis. This

chapter describes the various steps involved in the present study, (i) calculation of loads as per

design code procedure, (ii) analyzing the selected frames as per the design code procedure for

linear property are[34-40],

Loads and load combinations considered for the analysis

Linear static analysis

1.5.2 LOAD CALCULATION

The major loads considered for the analysis are wall loads, external gladding, loads due

to finishes, false ceiling loads, live loads and Seismic loads. The unit weight of materials is taken

from IS 875 part 1. The live loads are taken from IS 875 part 2. The seismic loads are calculated

based on IS 1893. The response spectrum method is used in dynamic analysis. The life of the

building is taken as 50 years.

The vertical design loads of the two dimensional analytical models are calculated as

three dimensional frames. The weight of the slab and the infill was distributed as triangular and

trapezoidal load to the surrounding beams as per IS456-2000, by considering the thickness of the

slab and the infill as 0.2 m and 0.23 m respectively. The sum of the vertical loads from the slabs are

calculated as a uniformly distributed load of 36 kN/m (except the beam self-weights) for the typical

storey beams and uniformly distributed load of 33.75 kN/m for the roof slab beams (except beam

self-weights). These mentioned loads cover the dead and reduced live loads together[41-45].

Beam self-weights and column self-weights are assigned by providing self-weight

multiplier as 1 in ETABS. Wind load and Seismic load consideration and the parameters, which are

used in the analysis of the models, are discussed in the following sections.


8441

Table 1.2 Loads considered for designing the frames

Sl.No. Load Type Density/Unit

Weight

Value

UDL over the

beams

(Roof Slab)

kN/m

UDL over the

beams

(Typical Floors)

kN/m

Dead Load

1 Weight of Slab 25 kN/m3 10 10

2 Infill/Parapet weight 20 kN/m3 7.5 15

3 Floor Finish 1 kN/m2 - 2

4 Water Proofing 2 kN/m2 4 -

5 Roof Finish 1 kN/m2 2 -

Live Load

6 Floor Load 4 kN/m2 - 8

7 Roof Load 1.5 kN/m2 3.0

Note: Self weight of the beams and columns are taken as per the dimensions

1.5.3 Wall Load

The ceiling height of the typical floor is 3 m. The unit weight of brick masonry is taken

from IS 875:1987- (Part 1). And gladding load calculated based on material property.

Brick Wall load

Typical floors: Weight of 230 mm thick Wall + 20 mm thick plastering

= 0.25 x 20 x 3.0 = 15 kN/m

Parapet walls: Weight of 230 mm thick. Wall + 20 mm thick plastering

= 0.25 x 20 x 1.05 = 7.5 kN/m

Gladding load

Typical floor: glass and including fitting

= 9.5 kN/m

1.5.4 Live Load

The live loads are taken from IS 875-(Part 2) Table 1. The office building comes under

institutional building category. This building occupancy consists of office rooms, toilets and terrace

floors.

Office room = 4.0 kN/m2

Toilet = 2.0 kN/m2

Terrace = 1.5 kN/m2


8442

1.5.5 Imposed Load

The imposed loads include floor finishes, false ceilings, and any walls resting on slab.

The floor finishes include weight of the tiles and screed. The false ceilings are hanged in the roof

slabs. The location of partition walls are liable to change so the wall loads on slabs are uniformly

taken as 1 kN/m2.

1.5.6 Seismic Load

Chennai comes under seismic zone III. The zone factor is 0.16 from IS 1893-2002,

Table 2. The response reduction factor R is 5 for the building with Steel OMRF and 4 for

concentric braced Model building[46-50]. This value is taken from Table 7 of IS: 1893-2002. The

importance factor from Table 6 of IS 1893-2002 for the office building is 1.5.

Height of the building, h = 36.50 m

Width of the building, dx = 52.00 m

Width of the building, dy = 28.00 m

Fundamental natural period (without infill) = 0.09h d 0.5

Where,

h - Height of the building

d - Base dimension of the building a the plinth level

= 0.09 x 36.5 x 520.5

Along X direction, T = 0.456 sec

= 0.09 x 36.5 x 280.5

Along Y direction, T = 0.6208 sec

By using ETABS earthquake lateral loads automatically generated as per

IS 1893 (Part 1)-2002 and using the above information refer Table 1.3

Table 1.3 Seismic load

Level Elevation

OMRF SDBF CBF KBF

X&Y

Direction

X&Y

Direction

X&Y

Direction

X&Y

Direction

m kN kN kN kN

Total - Vb 1441.582 1439.216 1367.366 1397.366

Stair Roof Level 36.5 90.3201 89.8066 89.8066 89.8066

Tenth floor level 34.0 334.3275 321.6934 321.6934 321.6934

Night floor Level 31.0 289.0236 271.6673 271.6673 271.6673

Eight Floor Level 28.0 228.3643 89.8066 227.9716 214.6507

Seventh floor

level 25.0 174.8414 321.6934 174.5408 164.3419

Sixth floor Level 22.0 128.4549 271.6673 128.234 120.741

Fifth Floor Level 19.0 89.2048 89.8066 89.0514 83.8479


8443

Table 1.3 (Continued)

Level Elevation

OMRF SDBF CBF KBF

X&Y

Direction

X&Y

Direction

X&Y

Direction

X&Y

Direction

m kN kN kN kN

Fourth Floor

Level 16.0 57.0911 321.6934 56.9929 53.6627

Third Floor level 13.0 32.1137 271.6673 32.0585 30.1853

Second Floor

Level 10.0 14.2728 89.8066 14.2483 13.4157

First Floor Level 7.0 3.5682 321.6934 3.562 3.3539

Ground Level 3.0 0 271.6673 0 0

1.5.6 Wind Load

The loads are calculated as per Indian code (IS875-1987, Part 3). As the location of

building is considered in Chennai. The following parameters are taken from IS875-1987 (Part 3).

Basic Wind Speed (Vb) = 50 m/s

Probability Factor, k1 = 1.0 (IS875-1987-Table 1)

Exposure category = 2

Building classification = C

Terrain, height and Structure = 1.05 (IS875-1987-Table 2)

Size Factor, k2

Topography Factor, k3 = 1.0 (Cl:5.3.3)

Design Wind Speed, Vz = Vb x k1 x k2 x k3 (Cl:5.3) (4.2)

= 50 x 1.0 x 1.05 x 1.0

Design Wind Speed, Vz = 52.5 m/s

Wind Load on Individual Members, F = (Cpe-Cpi) x A x pd (4.3)

Where,

Cpi - Internal Pressure Coefficient

Cpe - External pressure coefficient

A - Influence width for column of selected building model

pd - Design Wind Pressure

Design Wind Pressure (pd) = 0.6Vz2 (4.4)

Internal Pressure Coefficient, (+Cpi) = +/- 0.5 for 5 to 20 % opening as per Cl:6.2.3.2 in

IS875-1987 Part 3. By considering the following parameters (h/w and l/w) the external pressure

coefficient (Cpe) values are taken from IS875-1987 Part 3, Table 4.

Height of the building above GL (h) = 33.5 m

Lesser horizontal dimension of the building (w) = 32.5 m

Greater horizontal dimension of the building (l) = 52.0 m


8444

h/w = 1.03 (1/2<h/w<3/2 - IS875-1987-Table 4)

l/w = 1.60 (3/2 < l/w< 4 - IS875-1987-Table 4)

The external pressure coefficient (Cpe) values are taken from Table 4 in IS875-1987

Part 3 is given in Table 1.4

Table 1.4 External pressure coefficient (Cpe) values

Direction A B C D

+X 0.7 -0.3 -0.7 -0.7

-Y -0.5 -0.5 0.7 -0.1

-X -0.3 0.7 -0.7 -0.7

+Y -0.5 -0.5 -0.7 0.7

Here positive(+) and negative(-) denotes the wind ward and the lee ward direction for

building model. To calculate External pressure coefficient (Cpe) values the wind direction for

selected building was assumed as shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 1.5 Wind direction assumption

A typical load calculation for column in X direction along Grid A is in following

sections. The typical calculated wind load (F) on individual column members for +X direction of

the selected building model are given in Table 1.6 Similarly -X,+Y and -Y direction wind loads

were calculated.

A

0

B 90

C

180

B 90


8445

Table 1.6 Wind loads WL(+X) on selected frame system

Along

Grid Col ID Cpe-Cpi Cpe-(-Cpi) Infl. Width

Force kN/m

+Cpi -Cpi

FACE-A

2-A' 0.2 1.2 2.250 0.74 4.47

1-A 0.2 1.2 4.000 1.32 7.95

1-B 0.2 1.2 8.000 2.65 15.89

1-C 0.2 1.2 7.000 2.32 13.90

1-D 0.2 1.2 6.000 1.99 11.92

1-E 0.2 1.2 3.000 0.99 5.96

3-E 0.2 1.2 3.000 0.99 5.96

3-D 0.2 1.2 6.000 1.99 11.92

3-C 0.2 1.2 7.000 2.32 13.90

2-B 0.2 1.2 4.000 1.32 7.95

2-A 0.2 1.2 6.250 2.07 12.41

2-A 0.2 1.2 2.250 0.74 4.47

5-E 0.2 1.2 3.000 0.99 5.96


Along Grid Col ID Cpe-Cpi Cpe-(-Cpi) Infl. Width Force kN/m

+Cpi -Cpi

FACE-A

5-D 0.2 1.2 6.000 1.99 11.92

5-C 0.2 1.2 7.000 2.32 13.90

5-B 0.2 1.2 4.000 1.32 7.95

7-E 0.2 1.2 3.000 0.99 5.96

7-D 0.2 1.2 3.000 0.99 5.96

FACE-B

3-A' -0.8 0.2 2.250 -2.98 0.74

9-A -0.8 0.2 4.000 -5.30 1.32

9-B -0.8 0.2 8.000 -10.59 2.65

9-B -0.8 0.2 4.000 -5.30 1.32

9-C -0.8 0.2 7.000 -9.27 2.32

9-D -0.8 0.2 6.000 -7.95 1.99

9-E -0.8 0.2 3.000 -3.97 0.99

3-A -0.8 0.2 2.250 -2.98 0.74

8-D -0.8 0.2 3.000 -3.97 0.99

8-E -0.8 0.2 3.000 -3.97 0.99

FACE-C

1-E -1.2 -0.2 3.000 -5.96 -0.99

2-E -1.2 -0.2 6.000 -11.92 -1.99

3-E -1.2 -0.2 6.000 -11.92 -1.99

4-E -1.2 -0.2 6.000 -11.92 -1.99

5-E -1.2 -0.2 6.000 -11.92 -1.99

6-E -1.2 -0.2 6.000 -11.92 -1.99


8446

7-E -1.2 -0.2 7.000 -13.90 -2.32

7'-E -1.2 -0.2 4.000 -7.95 -1.32

8-E -1.2 -0.2 5.750 -11.42 -1.90

9-E -1.2 -0.2 4.000 -7.95 -1.32

FACE-D

1-A -1.2 -0.2 3.000 -5.96 -0.99

2-A' -1.2 -0.2 3.000 -5.96 -0.99

3-A' -1.2 -0.2 3.000 -5.96 -0.99

4-A -1.2 -0.2 6.000 -11.92 -1.99

5-A -1.2 -0.2 6.000 -11.92 -1.99

6-A -1.2 -0.2 6.000 -11.92 -1.99

7-A -1.2 -0.2 7.000 -13.90 -2.32

8-A -1.2 -0.2 8.000 -15.89 -2.65

9-A -1.2 -0.2 4.000 -7.95 -1.32


Along Grid Col ID Cpe-Cpi Cpe-(-Cpi) Infl. Width Force kN/m

+Cpi -Cpi

FACE-D

5-B -1.2 -0.2 3.000 -5.96 -0.99

6-B -1.2 -0.2 6.000 -11.92 -1.99

7-B -1.2 -0.2 7.000 -13.90 -2.32

8-B -1.2 -0.2 8.000 -15.89 -2.65

9-B -1.2 -0.2 4.000 -7.95 -1.32

7-D -1.2 -0.2 4.000 -7.95 -1.32

8-D -1.2 -0.2 4.000 -7.95 -1.32

1.6ANALYSIS OF BUILDING USING ETABS

The analysis of the frames is carried out by conducting Time History Analysis as

suggested by IS1893 (2002) using ETABS software. The entire building is modeled and the various

loads are applied using ETABS software. Partition wall loads are applied in the beams. Live loads

and imposed loads such as finishes and false ceiling loads are applied as imposed loads on the

slabs. The load combination is taken based on IS 456:2000, Table 18. The different type of load

combinations used in the analysis is given below.

Limit State of Serviceability,

1. 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL

2. 1.0 DL + 1.0 EQ/WL (+X and –X)

3. 1.0 DL + 1.0 EQ/WL (+Y and –Y)

4. 1.0 DL + 0.8 IL + 0.8EQ/WL (+X and –X)

5. 1.0 DL + 0.8 IL + 0.8EQ/WL (+Y and –Y)

Limit State of Collapse,


8447

1. 1.5 DL + 1.5 LL

2. 1.5 DL + 1.5 EQ/WL (+X and –X)

3. 1.5 DL + 1.5 EQ/WL (+Y and –Y)

4. 1.2 DL + 1.2 LL + 1.2 EQ/WL (+X and –X)

5. 1.2 DL + 1.2 LL + 1.2 EQ/WL (+Y and –Y)

where,

DL - Dead Load

IL - Imposed Load

EQ - Earthquake Load on ±X and ±Y Direction

WL - Wind Load on ±X and ±Y direction

1.7Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame Building

Linear static analysis is carried out and the values of lateral displacement along the

height of the building with Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) is given in Table 1.7 The

structural members considered for this analysis are column size-UB914X419X388, main beam

size-UB914X305X224, secondary beam size-UB457X191X74 and mid landing beam size-

UB406X178X74.

Table 1.7 OMRF building displacement and drift

Level Elevation

Displacement Drift

X-Direction Y- Direction X-Direction Y-

Direction

m mm mm mm mm

Basement 0 0 0 0 0

Ground floor 3.0 5.46 3.25 1.82 1.08

First floor 7.0 18.43 8.50 4.61 2.12

Second floor 10.0 22.34 10.67 7.45 3.56

Third floor 13.0 25.54 12.28 8.51 4.09

Fourth floor 16.0 28.27 13.59 9.42 4.53

Fifth floor 19.0 30.90 14.68 10.30 4.89

Sixth floor 22.0 33.08 15.58 11.03 5.19

Seventh floor 25.0 34.78 16.46 11.59 5.49

Eighth floor 28.0 36.72 17.44 12.24 5.81


Level Elevation

Displacement Drift


Direction

m mm mm mm mm


8448

Ninth floor 31.0 38.08 17.83 12.70 5.95

Tenth floor 34.0 38.76 18.32 12.92 6.10

Stair roof 36.5 39.00 19.01 19.52 9.51

1.8 Single Diagonal Braced Frame Building


height of the building with Single Diagonal Braced Frame (SDBF) is given in Table 1.8 The

structural members considered for analysis of SDBF building model are Column size-

UB610X229X140, Main beam size-UB533X210X92[32-38], Secondary beam size-

UB457X191X74 and Mid landing beam size-UB406X178X74, Steel pipe sections considered for

diagonal bracings-CHHF457X16 and CHHF273X16.

Table 1.8 SDBF building displacement and drift

Level Elevation

Displacement Drift


Direction

m mm mm mm mm

Basement 0 0 0 0 0

Ground floor 3.0 4.46 2.85 1.49 0.95

First floor 7.0 8.43 3.50 2.11 0.87

Second floor 10.0 12.34 4.06 4.11 1.35

Third floor 13.0 15.54 4.58 5.18 1.53

Fourth floor 16.0 18.27 5.19 6.09 1.73

Fifth floor 19.0 20.90 7.68 6.97 2.56


Level Elevation

Displacement Drift


Direction

m mm mm mm mm

Sixth floor 22.0 23.08 9.58 7.69 3.19

Seventh floor 25.0 24.78 10.46 8.26 3.49

Eighth floor 28.0 25.72 11.44 8.57 3.81

Ninth floor 31.0 27.08 12.83 9.03 4.28

Tenth floor 34.0 28.76 13.32 9.59 4.44

Stair roof 36.5 30.00 14.01 15.00 7.01


8449

1.9 Concentric Braced Frame Building


height of the building with Concentric Braced Frame (CBF) is given in Table 1.9. The structural

members considered for analysis of CBF building model are Column size-UB610X229X140, Main

beam size-UB533X210X92, Secondary beam size-UB457X191X74 and Mid landing beam size-

UB406X178X74, Steel pipe sections considered for diagonal bracings-CHHF168.3X12.5 and

CHHF355.6X16.

Table 1.9 CBF building displacement and drift

Level Elevation

Displacement Drift


Direction

m mm mm mm mm

Basement 0 0 0 0 0

Ground floor 3.0 2.46 0.65 0.82 0.22

First floor 7.0 4.43 1.50 1.11 0.37

Second floor 10.0 5.34 2.67 1.78 0.89

Third floor 13.0 7.54 3.27 2.51 1.09

Fourth floor 16.0 9.27 4.59 3.09 1.53


Level Elevation

Displacement Drift


Direction

m mm mm mm mm

Fifth floor 19.0 11.90 5.98 3.97 1.99

Sixth floor 22.0 13.08 6.58 4.36 2.19

Seventh floor 25.0 14.78 7.46 4.93 2.49

Eighth floor 28.0 15.72 7.94 5.24 2.65

Ninth floor 31.0 17.08 9.53 5.70 3.18

Tenth floor 34.0 18.76 10.02 6.25 3.34

Stair roof 36.5 20.00 10.51 10.00 5.26

1.9.2 K-type Braced Frame Building


height of the building with K-type Braced Frame (KBF) is given in Table 2.0 The structural

members considered for analysis of KBF building model are Column size-UB610X229X140, Main

beam size-UB533X210X92, Secondary beam size-UB457X191X74 and Mid landing beam size-


8450

UB406X178X74, Steel pipe sections considered for diagonal bracings-CHHF168.3X12.5 and

CHHF355.6X16.

Table 2.0 KBF building displacement and drift

Level Elevation

Displacement Drift


Direction

m mm mm mm mm

Basement 0 0 0 0 0

Ground floor 3.0 3.46 1.75 1.15 0.58

First floor 7.0 7.43 2.50 1.86 0.62

Second floor 10.0 10.34 3.36 3.45 1.12


Level Elevation

Displacement Drift


Direction

m mm mm mm mm

Third floor 13.0 12.54 3.93 4.18 1.31

Fourth floor 16.0 14.27 4.89 4.76 1.63

Fifth floor 19.0 16.90 6.83 5.63 2.28

Sixth floor 22.0 18.08 8.08 6.03 2.69

Seventh floor 25.0 20.78 8.96 6.93 2.99

Eighth floor 28.0 24.72 9.69 8.24 3.23

Ninth floor 31.0 25.08 11.18 8.36 3.73

Tenth floor 34.0 26.76 11.67 8.92 3.89

Stair roof 36.5 28.000 12.23 14.00 6.12

2.0COST ANALYSIS OF BUILDING MODELS

A key component of the cost of any building type is the frame. The frame cost increases

as the building become taller. The cost analysis of composite building includes,

The types of steel frames

The design of the steel frames

The quantifying weight of steel frames

The section sizes and availability

Connections and fittings


8451

Erection costs of the frames

Fire protection

Other elements-site location, transport, etc.

Breakdown of costs of steel frame for a typical multi storey commercial building is

given in Figure 2.1

Figure 2.1 Breakdown of costs of steel frame for a typical multi storey commercial building

As the raw material and fabrication covers the major percentage of total cost of the

building, this study focuses the steel frames weight. Steel frame weight is calculated by adding the

steel frame elements-Beams, Columns and bracings. Steel frame elements weight is obtained from

ETABS. Steel weight for building models is given in Table 2.0

Table 2.2 Steel frames weight for building models taken for study

Building model Steel weight in Tons

OMRF Building 1630.40

SDBF Building 1400.57

CBF Building 1000.24

KBF Building 1215.37


8452

3.0RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1GENERAL

In this project, a G+10-storey steel framed composite building with 3 meters height for

each storey, except ground storey (4m height) and upper roof storey (2.5m height) irregular in both

plan and elevation is modeled. The building models are assumed to be fixed at the base and the

floors acts as rigid diaphragms. The sections of structural elements are I-sections and Pipe sections

and their dimensions are changed for different buildings. The buildings are modeled using ETABS

software. Four different models were studied with different framing system. Models are studied in

zones III comparing lateral displacement, storey drift, steel weight for all models.

3.2STOREY DISPLACEMENT AND DRIFT

The linear analysis of all the frame models that includes OMRF, SDBF, CBF, KBF has

been done by using software ETABS and the results are shown below. The parameters which are to

be studied are lateral displacement in X & Y direction, shown in the Figure 5.1 and 5.2. Storey drift

is the displacement of one level relative to the other level above or below. Storey drift ratio

according to the zones of each model is shown in Figure 5.3 and 5.4 for X and Y Direction.

Figure 6.1 Displacements in X – Direction

Figure 3.2 Displacements in X – Direction for selected building models


8453

3.3 CONCLUSION

From the all results obtained in this study, it is possible to draw the following conclusions:

Lateral displacements are within the permissible limit of H/400 for all four framing systems

investigated in this study.

Minimum lateral displacements both in X and Y direction are obtained for Concentric (Double

Diagonal) Bracings in comparison of the situation when same building with Ordinary Moment

Resisting Frames, Single Diagonal Bracings and K-type Bracings.

From this study, the lesser structural steel weight of building is obtained when it is braced with

Concentric (Double Diagonal) Bracings in comparison of the situation when same building with

Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames, Single Diagonal Bracings and K-type Bracings.

Minimum Storey Drift (both in X and Y Direction) is obtained for Concentric (Double

Diagonal) Bracings in comparison of all four framing systems investigated in this study.

REFERENCES

1 AISC 341 & 358, P/BC 2008-098- ‘Structural Design Guidelines For Steel moment Resisting

Frames’ Information Bulletin/Public-Building Code.

2 ETAB 2015 ‘Extended Three Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems’, Version 15.0.,

Computers & Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California.

3 IS 875-Part 1 (1987), ‘Code of Practice for Design loads other than Earthquake for buildings

and structures-Dead loads’, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.


and structures-Imposed loads’, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.


and structures-Wind loads’, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

6 Ramamoorthy, R., Kanagasabai, V., Kausalya, R., Impact of celebrities' image on brand,

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-18 Special Issue, PP-251-

253, 2017

7 Ramamoorthy, R., Kanagasabai, V., Vignesh, M., Quality assurance in operation theatre

withreference to fortis malar hospital, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics,

V-116, I-14 Special Issue, PP-87-93, 2017

8 Ramya, N., Arthy, J., Honey comb graphs and its energy, International Journal of Pure and

Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-18 Special Issue, PP-83-86, 2017

9 Ramya, N., Jagadeeswari, P., Proper coloring of regular graphs, International Journal of Pure

and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-16 Special Issue, PP-531-533, 2017

10 Ramya, N., Karunagaran, K., Proper, star and acyclic coloring of some graphs, International

Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-16 Special Issue, PP-43-44, 2017

11 Ramya, N., Muthukumar, M., On coloring of 4-regular graphs, International Journal of Pure

and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-16 Special Issue, PP-491-494, 2017

12 Ramya, N., Muthukumar, M., On star and acyclic coloring of graphs, International Journal of

Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-16 Special Issue, PP-467-469, 2017


8454

13 Ramya, N., Pavi, J., Coloring of book and gear graphs, International Journal of Pure and


14 Ramya, P., Hameed Hussain, J., Alteration framework for integrating quality of service in

internet real-time network, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-8

Special Issue, PP-57-61, 2017

15 Ramya, P., Sriram, M., Tweet sarcasm: Peep, International Journal of Pure and Applied

Mathematics, V-116, I-10 Special Issue, PP-231-235, 2017

16 Sabarish, R., Meenakshi, C.M., Comparision of beryllium and CI connecting rod using ansys,


132, 2017

17 Sabarish, R., Rakesh, N.L., Outcome of inserts for enhancing the heat exchangers,


422, 2017

18 Sangeetha, M., Gokul, N., Aruls, S., Estimator for control logic in high level synthesis,


428, 2017

19 Sangeetha, M., Gokul, N., Aruls, S., Image steganography using a curvelet transformation,


422, 2017

20 Saraswathi, P., Srinivasan, V., Peter, M., Research on financial supply chain from view of

stability, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-17 Special Issue,

PP-211-213, 2017

21 Saravana Kumar, A., Hameed Hussain, J., Expanding the pass percentage in semester

examination, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-15 Special

Issue, PP-45-48, 2017

22 Saravana, S., Arulselvi, S., AdaBoost SVM based brain tumour image segmentation and

classification, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-20 Special

Issue, PP-399-403, 2017

23 Saravana, S., Arulselvi, S., Dynamic power management monitoring and controlling system

using wireless sensor network, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116,

I-20 Special Issue, PP-405-408, 2017

24 Saravana, S., Arulselvi, S., Clustered morphic algorithm based medical image analysis,


415, 2017

25 Saravana, S., Arulselvi, S., Networks, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics,

V-116, I-20 Special Issue, PP-393-396, 2017

26 Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P., Adsorptive removal of heavy metal chromium from aqueous

medium using modified natural adsorbent, International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, V-8, I-8, PP-1382-1387, 2017

27 Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P., Adsorptive removal of brilliant green dye by modified

coconut shell adsorbent, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-13


28 Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P., Photodegradation of eriochrome black-T dye from aqueous

medium by photocatalysis, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-

13 Special Issue, PP-183-187, 2017


8455

29 Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P., Photodradation of malachite green DYE using

TIO<inf>2</inf>/activated carbon composite, International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, V-8, I-8, PP-156-163, 2017

30 Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P., Synthesis of photocatalytic composite Fe-C/TiO2 for

degradation of malachite green dye from aqueous medium, International Journal of Pure and


31 Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P., Removal of heavy X`X`l from aqueous medium using

modified natural adsorbent, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-

13 Special Issue, PP-205-210, 2017

32 Saritha, B., Chockalingam, M.P., Degradation of malachite green dye using a semiconductor

composite, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-13 Special Issue,

PP-195-199, 2017

33 Sartiha, B., Chockalingam, M.P., Photocatalytic decolourisationoftextileindustrywastewaterby

TiO2, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-18 Special Issue, PP-

221-224, 2017

34 Sartiha, B., Chockalingam, M.P., Study on photocatalytic degradation of Crystal Violet dye

using a semiconductor, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-18


35 Shanthi, E., Nalini, C., Rama, A., The effect of highly-available epistemologies on hardware

and architecture, International Journal of Pharmacy and Technology, V-8, I-3, PP-17082-

17086, 2016

36 Shanthi, E., Nalini, C., Rama, A., Drith: Autonomous,random communication, International

Journal of Pharmacy and Technology, V-8, I-3, PP-17002-17006, 2016

37 Shanthi, E., Nalini, C., Rama, A., A case for replication, International Journal of Pharmacy

and Technology, V-8, I-3, PP-17234-17238, 2016

38 Shanthi, E., Nalini, C., Rama, A., Elve: A methodology for the emulation of robots,

International Journal of Pharmacy and Technology, V-8, I-3, PP-17182-17187, 2016

39 Shanthi, E., Nalini, C., Rama, A., Autonomous epistemologies for 802.11 mesh networks,

International Journal of Pharmacy and Technology, V-8, I-3, PP-17087-17093, 2016

40 Sharavanan, R., Golden Renjith, R.J., Design and analysis of fuel flow in bend pipes,

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-15 Special Issue, PP-59-64,

2017

41 Sharavanan, R., Jose Ananth Vino, V., Emission analysis of C.I engine run by

diesel,sunflower oil,2 ethyl hexyl nitrate blends, International Journal of Pure and Applied

Mathematics, V-116, I-14 Special Issue, PP-403-408, 2017

42 Sharavanan, R., Sabarish, R., Design of built-in hydraulic jack for light motor vehicles,


460, 2017

43 Sharavanan, R., Sabarish, R., Design and fabrication of aqua silencer using charcoal and lime

stone, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-14 Special Issue, PP-

513-516, 2017

44 Sharmila, G., Thooyamani, K.P., Kausalya, R., A schoolwork on customer relationship

management with special reference to domain 2 host, International Journal of Pure and


45 Sharmila, S., Jeyanthi Rebecca, L., Anbuselvi, S., Kowsalya, E., Kripanand, N.R., Tanty, D.S.,

Choudhary, P., SwathyPriya, L., GC-MS analysis of biofuel extracted from marine algae, Der

Pharmacia Lettre, V-8, I-3, PP-204-214, 2016


8456

46 Sidharth Raj, R.S., Sangeetha, M., Data embedding method using adaptive pixel pair matching

method, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-15 Special Issue,

PP-417-421, 2017

47 Sidharth Raj, R.S., Sangeetha, M., Android based industrial fault monitoring, International


48 Sidharth Raj, R.S., Sangeetha, M., Mobile robot system control through an brain computer

interface, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-15 Special Issue,

PP-413-415, 2017

49 Sivaraman, K., Sundarraj, B., Decisive lesion detection in digital fundus image, International


50 Sridhar, J., Sriram, M., Cloud privacy preserving for dynamic groups, International Journal of

Pure and Applied Mathematics, V-116, I-8 Special Issue, PP-117-120, 2017

.


8457

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIF FERENT FRAMING SYSTEM FOR MULTI … · limit states, lateral stiffness is...

Documents

Transcript of COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIF FERENT FRAMING SYSTEM FOR MULTI … · limit states, lateral stiffness is...