advertisement

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 10, Issue 04, April 2019, pp. 1001-1012. Article ID: IJCIET_10_04_105 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=04 ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316 © IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STATIC ANALYSIS (AS PER IS: 1893-2002) & DYNAMIC ANALYSIS (AS PER IS:1893-2016) OF A BUILDING FOR ZONE V Ajay Kumar M. Tech. Structural Engineering, Chandigarh University, Mohali-140413, Punjab, India. Jagdish Chand Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Chandigarh University, Mohali 140413, Punjab, India ABSTRACT In present study, different storied building has been modeled using staad.pro software and analyzed with gravity and seismic loads to compare the results of seismic analysis as per IS:1893-2002 and IS:1893-2016.The design has been done for 4 storey, 8 storey & 11 storey buildings. The maximum height of the aforementioned buildings is 39.6m, therefore, according to previous seismic code (IS:1893-2002) static seismic analysis was performed and as per new seismic code (IS:1893-2016) dynamic seismic analysis was performed. The loading and all other relevant considerations are same for various building. The performance of the structures has been evaluated in terms of different structural parameters such as axial force, bending moment, displacement, material quantity etc. Cost analysis has also been carried out on material (concrete and steel). Comparison of these results has been done to draw the conclusion of the present study. From the final outcomes of the study, it has been found that the total cost of the buildings designed with dynamic seismic analysis comes out to be 1.06 to 1.1 times higher than the building designed with static seismic analysis. Keywords: Static and Dynamic Seismic Analysis, Staad Pro. Cite this Article: Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand, A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 10(4), 2019, pp. 1001-1012. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=04 http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1001 [email protected] A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V 1. INTRODUCTION In overhauling world, infrastructures have become omnipresent and it is inevitable to imagine today’s world without it. Buildings made from concrete is one of the basic form of infrastructures which can be seen everywhere. Process of construction of a building entails different department such as architects, structure designer, contractors etc. with all the help of these departments, building is being erected such that it can withstand vigorous vertical loads and ground motion which is the result of earthquakes. Designer has to be very careful while considering these forces as little miscalculations will lead to failure of the structure because ground motions, being the complex concept, needs to be analyzed in a very scrutinized manner. Therefore, the resistance of a building and its design as per the guidelines of seismic codes has become an important research area. Sometimes, addition of members other than beams and columns are required to resist these produced lateral forces. IS: 1893-2016, being the latest Seismic Indian Code, provides amendments regarding the design of the earthquake resistant building. Various amendments and new guidelines were introduced in this code but the major one was related to the dynamic seismic analysis. It stated that dynamic seismic analysis shall be adopted for all the buildings other than regular buildings lower than 15 m in height in seismic zone II Figure 1 Ground Motion during Earthquake Previously, dynamic seismic analysis shall on be adopted if the height of regular building exceeds 40m, otherwise static seismic analysis shall be used. Therefore, while keeping both the codes (new and old version of earthquake code), a comparative study of static analysis (as per is: 1893-2002) & dynamic analysis (as per is:1893-2016) in seismic zone V has been carried out. Various seismic parameters are to be considered while designing earthquake resistant building such as type of structure, material which is being used for construction, type of foundation soil etc. Two different methods, which are being used for making the structures earthquake resistant, are: • Equivalent Static Seismic Analysis • Dynamic Seismic Analysis. o Response Spectrum Method. o Modal Time History Method o Time History Method. Application of above-mentioned methods may vary as per the site conditions, type of structure, height and seismic zone etc. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1002 [email protected] Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Present study has been taken in order to compare the results of seismic analysis as per IS:18932002 and IS: 1893-2016. Research methodology which was being used during the study is represented below in different phases. 2.1. Phase I: Modeling 4 storey, 8 storey & 11 storey regular buildings were chosen as the maximum height of the structure comes out to be 39.6m. Description of various models are being represented in the table 1. Table 1 Description of Various Models Type Storey Earthquake Design Code Type A 4 storey Building IS: 1893-2002 Type B 8 storey Building IS: 1893-2002 Type C 11 storey Building IS: 1893-2002 Type D Type E Type F 4 storey Building 8 storey Building 11 storey Building IS: 1893-2016 IS: 1893-2016 IS: 1893-2016 Seismic Analysis Method Equivalent Static Method Equivalent Static Method Equivalent Static Method Dynamic Method Dynamic Method Dynamic Method Total Height (m) 14.4 28.8 39.6 14.4 28.8 39.6 Other parameters of modeling are being represented in the table given below: • Height of each storey = 3.6 m • No. of bays in X-direction = 6 • No. of bays in Z-direction =6 • Panel of each bay =6mx5m Figure 3 Four Storey Building http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1003 [email protected] A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V Figure 5 Eleven Storey Building Figure 4 Eight Storey Building Material properties which were assigned to different storey buildings are mentioned in table 2. Table 2 Material Properties of Columns and Beams Type of building Type A & Type D Type B & Type E Type C & Type F Floors 1 to 4th floor 1st to 4th floor 5th to 8th floor 1st to 4th floor 5th to 8th floor 9th to 11th floor st Column size (mm) 575 x 575 750 x 750 575 x 575 900 x 900 750 x 750 450 x 450 Beam size (mm) 450 x 375 575 x 450 375 x 375 600 x 575 575 x 450 450 x 375 Loading on the structures are applied as per the codal provisions of Indian Standards i.e. IS: 875 part I (Dead Load) and IS: 875 part II (Live Load) and is being specified in the given table below. Table 3 Details of Loading Applied. DEAD LOADS Wall load on outers beams Wall load on inner beams Parapet wall load Floor slab & finishing load 15.2 kN/m 7.6 kN/m 2.9 kN/m 6 kN/m2 LIVE LOAD 3 kN/m2 1.5 kN/m2 Load on floors (except roof floor) Load on roof floor 2.2. Phase II: Seismic Analysis Total 3 models (Type A, Type B & Type C) were analyzed and designed with old seismic code IS:1893:2002 by static seismic analysis and then another 3 models (Type D, Type E & Type F)were analyzed and designed with new seismic code IS:1893:2016 by dynamic seismic analysis. For these seismic analysis, seismic parameters such as seismic zone, type of structure, http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1004 [email protected] Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand soil type etc remain same so that comparison between the buildings designed with old and new code shall be done. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION During the present study, columns were being evaluated in terms of axial force, bending moment, percentage of steel, deflection and beams for shear force and bending moment. The results have been recorded from the post-processing of staad.pro connect edition and are being represented in tabular and graphical form. Note that the columns were being designed for critical load cases in staad.pro, therefore, critical load case may vary from column to column. And results of beams (i.e. values of shear force and bending moment) were obtained from the factored load case (1.5 D.L + 1.5 L.L). Following are the results of 4 storey, 8 storey and 11 storey building analyzed with static seismic analysis and dynamic seismic analysis. 3.1. Results of Type A and Type D Building The values of structural parameters such as axial force (kN) and bending moment (kN-m) for the columns of 4 storey building are being represented in table 4 and table 5 respectively. Table 4 AXIAL FORCES (KN) IN COLUMN Floor Old Code (Type A) New Code (Type D) 1 327.84 289.01 2 879.67 489.57 3 490.23 500.44 4 160.67 164.13 Figure 6 shows the % steel and it can be clearly seen that the new code (Type D building) value is more than the value of old code (Type A building) and the maximum ratio (new code value/ old code value) comes out to be 1.60. Whereas, figure 7 represents the displacement (mm) of column. Due to dynamic seismic analysis, it was observed that the maximum displacement value is 1.16 times higher than the value obtained from static seismic analysis. Figure 6 % of Steel in Column. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1005 [email protected] A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V Figure 7 Displacement in Column. Table 5 BENDING MOMENT (KN-M) IN COLUMN Floor Old Code (Type A) New Code (Type D) 1 420.76 589.49 2 272.77 309.48 3 263.02 305.07 4 190.67 200.52 Figure 8 and 9 shows the beam result i.e. values of shear force and bending moment respectively. From the figures, it was concluded that type D building (new code) produces more value than type A building (old code), approximately 1.07 times higher. Figure 8 Shear force in Beam. Figure 9 Bending Moment in Beam. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1006 [email protected] Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand After cost analysis, the cost of the concrete and steel is being represented in figure 10. Therefore, the total cost of 4 storied building comes out to be Rs. 53.82 lakhs for type D building and Rs. 49.35 lakhs for Type A building. Figure 10 Total Cost of 4 Storey Building. 3.2. Results of Type B and Type E Building The values of structural parameters such as axial force (kN) and bending moment (kN-m) for the columns of 8 storey building are being represented in table 6 and table 7 respectively. Table 6 AXIAL FORCES (KN) IN COLUMN Floor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Old Code (Type B) 488.15 2670.98 2199.8 1718.28 1176.75 800.75 468.32 153.37 New Code (Type E) 719.21 2583.29 2122.61 1662.74 383.74 562.82 461.24 150.2 Figure 11 shows the % steel and it can be clearly seen that the new code (Type E building) value is more than the value of old code (Type B building) and the maximum ratio (new code value/ old code value) comes out to be 1.07. Whereas, figure 12 represents the displacement (mm) of column. Due to dynamic seismic analysis, it was observed that the maximum displacement value is 0.84 times the value obtained from static seismic analysis. Figure 11 % of steel in Column. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1007 [email protected] A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V Figure 12 Displacement in Column. Figure 13 and 14 shows the beam result i.e. values of shear force and bending moment respectively. From the figures, it was concluded that type E building (new code) produces more value than type B building (old code), approximately 1.1 times higher. Figure 13 Shear force in Beam. Figure 14 bending Moment in Beam. Table 7 BENDING MOMENT (KN-M) IN COLUMN Floor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Old Code (Type B) 16.29 82.37 71.99 84.15 422.68 246.62 266.37 175.5 http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1008 New Code (Type E) 741.81 82.27 71.84 83.9 373.8 249.07 264.58 164.89 [email protected] Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand The cost of concrete and steel is being represented in figure 15. Therefore, the total cost of 8 storied building comes out to be Rs. 130.40 lakhs for Type E building and Rs. 120.51 lakhs for Type B building. Figure 15 Total Cost of 8 Storey Building. 3.3. Results of Type C and Type F Building The values of structural parameters such as axial force (kN) and bending moment (kN-m) for the columns of 11 storey building are being represented in table 8 and table 9 respectively. Table 8 AXIAL FORCES (KN) IN COLUMN Floor Old Code (Type C) New Code (Type F) 1 4873.65 1018.24 2 4378.21 4308.42 3 3835.73 3767.66 4 3276.51 3219.11 5 2707.53 2670.11 6 2222.25 2205.06 7 1738.4 1741.92 8 1266.21 310.24 9 786.21 512.67 10 441.8 461.56 11 143.64 152.19 Figure 16 shows the % steel and it can be clearly seen that the new code (Type F building) value is more than the value of old code (Type C building) and the maximum ratio (new code value/ old code value) comes out to be 1.30. Whereas, figure 17 represents the displacement (mm) of column. Due to dynamic seismic analysis, it was observed that the maximum displacement value is 0.9 times than the value obtained from static seismic analysis. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1009 [email protected] A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V Figure 16 % of Steel in Column. Figure 17 Displacement in Column. Table 9 BENDING MOMENT (KN-M) IN COLUMN Floor Old Code (Type C) New Code (Type F) 1 28.75 1012.59 2 90.24 90.11 3 80.82 80.59 4 92.85 92.5 5 68.54 68.25 6 85.89 85.51 7 82.12 81.7 8 97.72 59.21 9 234.5 260.85 10 189.82 214.26 11 131.21 156.46 Figure 18 and 19 shows the beam result i.e. values of shear force and bending moment respectively. From the figures, it was concluded that type F building (new code) produces more value than type C building (old code), approximately 1.07 higher. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1010 [email protected] Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand Figure 18 Shear Force in Beams. Figure 19 Bending Moment in Beams. After cost analysis, the cost of the concrete and steel is being represented in figure 20. Therefore, the total cost of 11 storied building comes out to be Rs. 206.54 lakhs for type F building and Rs. 195.36 lakhs for Type C building. Figure 20 Total Cost of 11 Storey Building. 4. CONCLUSION The present paper compares the results of static seismic analysis and dynamic seismic analysis and following are the conclusions which were drawn from the study: • For 4 storey building, maximum displacement in column in Type D is 1.16 times higher than the maximum Displacement in Type A. And the total cost of Type D building comes out to be 1.1 times higher than the total cost of Type A building. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1011 [email protected] A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V • • For 8 storey building, maximum displacement in column in Type E is 0.84 times higher than the maximum Displacement in Type B. And the total cost of Type E building comes out to be 1.08 times higher than the total cost of Type B building. For 11 storey building, maximum displacement in column in Type F is 0.9 times higher than the maximum Displacement in Type C. And the total cost of Type F building comes out to be 1.06 times higher than the total cost of Type C building. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] S.K. Ahirwar, S.K. Jain and M. M. Pande, “Earthquake Loads On Multistory Buildings As Per Is: 1893-1984 And Is: 1893-2002: A Comparative Study”, World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2008. Amit V. Khandve, “Seismic Response of RC Frame Buildings with Soft Storey’s”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2012, Volume-2, Issue-3, 2100-2108. Kiran Kumar, G. Papa Rao, “Comparison Of Percentage Steel And Concrete Quantities Of A R.C Building In Different Seismic Zones”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 2013, Volume-02, Issue-07, 124-134. B Sri Harsha, J Vikranth, “Study and Comparison of Construction Sequence Analysis with Regular Analysis By Using Etabs” International Journal of Research Sciences and Advanced Engineering, 2014, Volume 2, Issue 8, 218 – 227. Umesh.R.Biradar, Shivaraj Mangalgi, “Seismic Response Of Reinforced Concrete Structure By Using Different Bracing Systems” International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 2014, Volume: 03 Issue: 09, 422 – 426. A.Sattainathan Sharma, G.R.Iyappan, J.Harish, “Comparative study of cost and time evaluation in RCC, steel & Composite high rise building”, Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2015, Volume-8, Issue-4, 911-915. Narayan Kalsulkar, Satish Rathod, “Seismic Analysis of RCC Building Resting on Sloping Ground with varying Number of Bays and Hill Slopes” International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 2015, Vol.5, No.3, 2063-2069. Pralobh S. Gaikwad and Kanhaiya K. Tolani, “Review Paper on Dynamic Analysis of Building”, International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 2015, Volume-5, Number-1, 974-975. Tejashree Kulkarni, Sachin Kulkarni, Anjum Algur, M. H. Kolhar, “Analysis And Design Of High Rise Building Frame Using Staad Pro”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 2016, Volume-05, Issue-04, 235-237. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Dr. S. Vijaya Mohan Rao, “Seismic Analysis of High Raised Building by Response Spectrum Method”, International Journal of Advanced Technology and Innovative Research, 2016, Volume-08, Issue-21, 4111-4118. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1012 [email protected]