A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STATIC ANALYSIS (AS PER IS: 1893 ... · In present study, different storied...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 2159 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 10, Issue 03, March 2019, pp. 2159-2170. Article ID: IJCIET_10_03_215

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=03

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(3), 2019, pp. 2159-2170.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=03

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.

Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand


Application of above-mentioned methods may vary as per the site conditions, type of

structure, height and seismic zone etc.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Present study has been taken in order to compare the results of seismic analysis as per

IS:1893-2002 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

Seismic Analysis

Method

Total Height

(m)

Type A 4 storey Building IS: 1893-2002 Equivalent Static

Method 14.4

Type B 8 storey Building IS: 1893-2002 Equivalent Static

Method 28.8

Type C 11 storey Building IS: 1893-2002 Equivalent Static

Method 39.6

Type D 4 storey Building IS: 1893-2016 Dynamic Method 14.4

Type E 8 storey Building IS: 1893-2016 Dynamic Method 28.8

Type F 11 storey Building IS: 1893-2016 Dynamic Method 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 = 6 m x 5 m

Figure 3 Four Storey Building




Figure 4 Eight Storey Building Figure 5 Eleven 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 Floors Column size (mm) Beam size (mm)

Type A & Type D 1st to 4

th floor 575 x 575 450 x 375

Type B & Type E 1st to 4

th floor 750 x 750 575 x 450

5th to 8

th floor 575 x 575 375 x 375

Type C & Type F 1st to 4

th floor 900 x 900 600 x 575

5th to 8

th floor 750 x 750 575 x 450

9th to 11

th floor 450 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 15.2 kN/m

Wall load on inner beams 7.6 kN/m

Parapet wall load 2.9 kN/m

Floor slab & finishing load 6 kN/m2

LIVE LOAD

Load on floors (except roof floor) 3 kN/m2

Load on roof floor 1.5 kN/m2

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, 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.




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.



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




Floor Old Code (Type B) New Code (Type E)

1 488.15 719.21

2 2670.98 2583.29

3 2199.8 2122.61

4 1718.28 1662.74

5 1176.75 383.74

6 800.75 562.82

7 468.32 461.24

8 153.37 150.2

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.


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.




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.


Floor Old Code

(Type B)

New Code

(Type E)

1 16.29 741.81

2 82.37 82.27

3 71.99 71.84

4 84.15 83.9

5 422.68 373.8

6 246.62 249.07

7 266.37 264.58

8 175.5 164.89



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.


3.3. Results of Type C and Type F Building




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.


analysis, it was observed that the maximum displacement value is 0.9 times than the value

obtained from static seismic analysis.




Figure 16 % of Steel in Column.

Figure 17 Displacement 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.



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.


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.




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] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

[4] 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.

[5] 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.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] 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.

[10] 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.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STATIC ANALYSIS (AS PER IS: 1893 ... · In present study, different storied...

Documents

Transcript of A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STATIC ANALYSIS (AS PER IS: 1893 ... · In present study, different storied...