A Review Study on Seismic Behavior of Tall Structure by using Floating Columns with Shear Wall

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume 4 Issue 1, December 2019 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD29633 | Volume – 4 | Issue – 1 | November-December 2019 Page 524
A Review Study on Seismic Behavior of Tall Structure
by using Floating Columns with Shear Wall
Shivani Barde1, Nitesh Kushwaha2
1M. Tech. Scholar, 2Professor,
1,2Department of Civil Engineering, Millennium Institute of Technology & Science,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
How to cite this paper: Shivani Barde | Nitesh
Kushwaha "A ReviewStudyonSeismicBehaviorof
Tall Structure by using Floating Columns with
Shear Wall" Published in International Journal of
Trend in Scientific Research and Development
(ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-4 | Issue-1,
December 2019, pp.524-530, URL:
https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd29633.pdf
Copyright © 2019 byauthor(s)andInternational
Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and
Development Journal. This is an Open Access
article distributed underthe
terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution
License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
INRODUCTION
Floatingcolumnreston the beam,meansthebeamwhich
support the column is act as a foundation. That beam is
calledastransferbeam.Thisiswidelyusedinhighstoried
buildings which are used for both commercial and
residential purpose. This helps to alter the plan of the top
floorstoourconvenience.Thetransferbeamthatsupport
floatingcolumnwillbedesignedwithmorereinforcement.
ManyurbanmultistorybuildingsinIndiatodayhaveopen
first storey as an unavoidable feature. This is primarily
being adopted to accommodate parking or reception
lobbies in the first storey.
The total seismic base shear as experienced by a building
during an earthquake is dependent on its natural period;
the seismic force distribution is dependent on the
distribution of stiffness and mass along the height. The
behavior of a building during earthquakes depends
critically on its overall shape, size and geometry, in
addition to how the earthquake forces are carried to the
ground.
Buildings with columns that hang or float on beams at an
intermediate storey and do not go all the way to the
foundation, have discontinuities in the load transfer path.
In structural engineering, a shear wall is a structural
system composed of braced panels (also
known as shear panels) to counter the effects of lateral
load acting on a structure
Literature Survey
General
Borad et al. (2018) Open ground story and Floating
columns are typical features in the modern multi-storey
constructions in urban India. Open ground storey and
Floating columns are primarily being adopted to
accommodate parking or reception lobbies in the
ground storey. Floating columns also provided for the
purpose to increase the floor space index. An
investigation has been performed to study the behavior
of the multi-storey buildings with soft storey and
floating columns subjected to earthquake loading. The
structural action of masonry infill panels of upperfloors
has also been taken into account by modelling them as
diagonal struts. Shear wall is one of the most commonly
used lateral load resisting system in high rise buildings.
In this study, building is modelled with shear wall at
different locations considering soft storey and floating
columns. Linear and Non-linear dynamic analysis is
carried out by using ETABS. The comparison of these
models for different parameters like Storey drift, Storey
stiffness, Max storey displacement, Modal time period,
Base shear is carried.
Sasidhar T 2018 In the modern era of construction
multi-storied building with floating column plays a
major role in Urban India. These floating columns are
used mainly for satisfying the space requirement in the
structure and to get good architectural view of the
building. In the present study, the analysis and designof
multistoried building with andwithoutfloatingcolumns
was done using staticanalysis.Aresidential multistoried
building consisting of G+5 has been chosen for carrying
out project work.
Objectives
The objectives of the research are outlined below:
Present work is comparative study of the behavior of
multistory buildings with and without floatingcolumnswith
Conner shear panels under same loading condition for both
buildings. Both buildings are analysis for wind load and
seismic loading condition.
Methodology
In thisstudy the behavior of building frame withandwithout
floating column is studied under static load, Dynamic load
and seismic loading condition. The Response Spectrum
method is adopted for dynamic analysis in the STAAD. Pro.
Two 11 story two bay 3D building frame with and without
floating columns are analyzed for static loading using the
present FEM code and for dynamic loading using Response
Spectrum method. For analysis of the commercial software
STAAD Pro. For this study we design a 9- story building
tower with all columns supporting to the ground and
another same building is design with floating columns.
These columns are supported by a shear wall provided in
place of brick
IJTSRD29633

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
Fig.4.1 Geometry of the 2-dimensional framework Dimensions are in meter
Analysis
In this example two concrete frames with and without floating column having same material property and dimension are
analyzed under same loading condition.
Fig.4.7 –STAAD Generated 3D Rendered model of building having shear wall and floating columns
Fig.4.8 –STAAD Generated 3D Rendered model of building without shear wall and floating columns

Results
COMAPRISION BETWEEN BUILDING TOWERS WITH AND WITHOUT FLOATING COLUMNS
After finishing comparative study of the building’s towers with andwithoutfloatingcolumnsacomparison ismadeon
the basis of following points given bellow Then final result is obtained by reading these tables.
1. MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT
2. MAXIMUM SHARE FORCE
3. AXIAL LOAD ON COLUMNS FOOTING
4. NODAL DISPLACEMENT OF BEAMS
5. VOLUME OF STEEL AND VOLUME OF CONCRETE
Fig.5.6 – STAAD Pro Model showingNodal displacement in Building without floating columns
Fig.5.6 – STAAD Pro Model showingNodal displacement in Building without floating columns
1. VOLUME OF STEEL AND VOLUME OF CONCRETE
A. TOTAL VOLUME OF CONCRETE FOR BUILDING HAVING FLOATING COLUMN = 654.6 CUM
B. VOLUME OF STEEL

BAR DIA
(in mm)
WEIGHT
(in New)
8 125821
10 76746
12 183721
16 126834
20 75764
25 24383
32 39396
*** TOTAL= 652665 = 65266.5 KG
C. TOTAL VOLUME OF CONCRETE FOR BUILDING WITHOUT FLOATING COLUMN = 666.4 CUM
D. VOLUME OF STEEL
BAR DIA
(in mm)
WEIGHT
(in New)
8 130674
10 84173
12 203828
16 122924
20 78177
25 22385
32 62389
*** TOTAL= 704550 = 70455.0 KG
GRAPH: - 5.1 MAXIMUM MOMENT IN COLUMN FOR BUILDING HAVING FLOATING COLUMNS
GRAPH: - 5.2 MAXIMUM MOMENT IN COLUMN FOR BUILDING WITHOUT FLOATING COLUMNS

GRAPH: - 5.3 MAXIMUM MOMENT IN BEAM FOR BUILDING HAVING FLOATING COLUMNS
GRAPH: - 5.4 MAXIMUM MOMENT IN BEAM FOR BUILDING WITHOUT FLOATING COLUMNS
GRAPH: - 5.5 MAXIMUM SHEAR FORCE IN COLUMN FOR BUILDING HAVING FLOATING COLUMNS

GRAPH: - 5.6 MAXIMUM SHEAR FORCE IN COLUMN FOR BUILDING WITHOUT FLOATING COLUMNS
GRAPH: - 5.7 MAXIMUM SHEAR FORCE IN BEAM FOR BUILDING HAVING FLOATING COLUMNS
GRAPH: - 5.8 MAXIMUM SHEAR FORCE IN BEAM FOR BUILDING WITHOUT FLOATING COLUMNS

CONCLUSION
According to model analysis and results obtained from the
design perform by STAAD. Pro V8i the following deductions
are made
There is small difference in quantity of concrete in
building having floating columns and building without
floating columns. The Quantity of concrete for building
having floating columns is 654.6 CUM and for Building
without floating columns is 666.4 CUM.
There is major difference in steel used. Steel forbuilding
having floating columns is 65266.5 KG and for Building
without floating columns is 70455.0 KG. Henceitisclear
that cost of the buildinghavingfloatingcolumnsis lessas
comparison of same size building having all columns
support in ground.
The maximum +Vemoment in the building having
floating columns is 4552.079 N-m and for the building
without floating columns is 5940.73N-m.andmaximum
-Ve moment in the building having floating columns is -
9650.54 N-m and for the building without floating
columns is -5940.73 N-m.
REFERENCES
[1] Awkar J. C. and Lui E.M, “Seismic analysis andresponse
of multistory semirigid frames”, Journal ofEngineering
Structures, Volume21, Issue 5, Page no:425-442,1997.
[2] Balsamoa A, Colombo A, Manfredi G, Negro P &Prota P
(2005), ”Seismic behavior of a full-scale RC frame
repaired using CFRP laminates”. Engineering
Structures 27 (2005) 769– 780.
[3] Bardakis V.G., Dritsos S.E. (2007), “Evaluating
assumptions for seismic assessment of existing
buildings “.Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
27 (2007) 223–233.
[4] Brodericka B.M., Elghazouli A.Y. and Goggins J,
“Earthquake testing and response analysis of
concentrically-braced sub-frames”, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research
[5] Dr. S. B. Shinde and N.B. Raut, Effect of Change in
Thicknesses and Height in Shear Wall on Deflection of
Multistoried Buildings. International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology,7, 2016, pp.587–591.
[6] Floating column and soft story in different earthquake
zones”,International Journal ofResearchinEngineering
and Technology, vol 2,Issue 4,ISSN 2321-7308.
[7] Han, S.W., Moon, K.H., and Chopra , A.K. (2010), ―
Application of MPA to estimate probability of collapse
of structures‖, Earthquake engineering and structural
dynamics,DOI: 10.1002/eqe.992.
[8] Hanganu, A.D., Onate, E., and Barbat, A.H. (2002), ―A
finite element methodology for local/global evaluation
in civil engineering structures‖, Computers &
Structures, Vol.80, pp. 1667-1680.
[9] Hardik Bhensdadia and Siddharth Shah “Pushover
Analysis of RC Frame structure with
[10] Hartley Gilbert and Abdel-Akher Ahmed, “Analysis of
building frames” Journal of Structural Engineering,Vol.
119, No. 2, Page no:468-483,1993.
[11] Haselton, C.B., and Deierlein, G.G. (2007), ―Assessing
seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete
frame buildings‖, PEER Rep. 2007/08. PEER Center,
Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
[12] Haselton, C.B., Liel, A., Deierlein, G.G., Dean, B.S., and
Chou, J.S. (2011), ―Seismic Collapse Safety of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings.I:AssessmentofDuctile
Moment Frames‖, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 137, No. 4, pp.481-491.
[13] Hatzigeorgiou, G.D.. and Liolios, A.A. (2010),
―Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated
strong ground motions‖,Soil dynamicsandearthquake
engineering, Vol. 30,No.10, pp.1010 – 1025.
[14] Hisada, T., Nakagawa, K., and Izumi, M., (1962),
―Earthquake response of structures having various
restoring force characteristics‖, In proceedings of
Japan National conference on EarthquakeEngineering,
1962, pp. 63 – 68.

A Review Study on Seismic Behavior of Tall Structure by using Floating Columns with Shear Wall

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to A Review Study on Seismic Behavior of Tall Structure by using Floating Columns with Shear Wall (20)

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Review Study on Seismic Behavior of Tall Structure by using Floating Columns with Shear Wall