IMPACT OF REDUCTION IN STIFFNESS OF SLAB ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF RCC STRUCTURE

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 10 Issue: 04 | Apr 2023 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2023, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.226 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 472
IMPACT OF REDUCTION IN STIFFNESS OF SLAB ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF
RCC STRUCTURE
Sneha S. Darekar1, Prof. P. R. Barbude2, Dr. S. A. Rasal3
1Post Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Datta Meghe College of Engineering, Airoli, Navi Mumbai
400708, Maharashtra, India
2Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Datta Meghe College of Engineering, Airoli, Navi Mumbai 400708,
Maharashtra, India
3 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Datta Meghe College of Engineering, Airoli, Navi Mumbai 400708,
Maharashtra, India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract – The various codes have suggested different
values of stiffness modifiers for differentstructuralelements in
respect of serviceability and ultimate limit of the structure.
The present work is carried out in order to incorporate the
effect of crack section in structural analysis of the high-rise
building (RCC) to attain the maximum resistance to
earthquake loads and to protect building to some extent from
earthquakes. A response spectrum analysis is carried out by
using ETABS 18 software on four 3D models of same 32-story
RCC building by considering the reduction in values of out of
plane stiffness modifiers of all the slabs in each model, for the
ultimate condition of the building. The results obtained are
compared by considering parameters such as top storey
displacement, story drift, major moment and required
reinforcement percentage of shear walls at the base.
According to analysis and design of model 4, it may be
concluded that shear walls will be strengthened and well-
designed during seismic events and this will improve the
seismic performance of the building.
Key Words: slab stiffness, stiffness modifier, crack section
effect.
1. INTRODUCTION
As height of the building increases,havingadequatestrength
and stiffness is very important for resisting lateral loadsand
stability of the high-rise building. Contribution ofstiffnessof
structural members has impact on the overall behaviour of
the building subjected to earthquake. For this study, the
stiffness of slab (out of plane stiffness) is reduced further
while the stiffness values of remaining structural elements
are kept as mentioned in IS 16700: 2017.
In the present study a response spectrum analysis by
ETABS 18 software is performed on four 3D models of
32-story RCC building in order to incorporate the effect of
crack approximately, by further reduction in stiffnessofslab
element in each model for the ultimate condition of the
building.
The Stiffness modifiers are the factors used to reduce
stiffness of concretesectionsfortakingintoconsiderationthe
cracking of RCC sections in analysis of the structure.Stiffness
modifiers are introduced to reduced moment of inertia of
different members due to cracking. The Table-1 shows the
stiffness modifiers given by the variouscodes underfactored
loads.
Table -1: Stiffness modifiers given by different codes
Codes Stiffness Modifiers
Slab Beam Column Wall
IS 16700:2017 0.25 0.35 0.7 0.7
IS 1893:2016 - 0.35 0.7 -
ACI 318:2014 0.25 0.35 0.7 0.7
IS 15988:2013 - 0.5 0.7 0.8
Area element or shell element has two types of stiffnesses in
plane stiffness and out-of-plane stiffness. In plane stiffness
referred to as f11, f22, f12 and out-of-plane stiffness referred
to as m11, m22, m12. In this study, for slab element the in-
plane stiffness modifiers are taken as 0.25 as per Table 6-
cracked RC section properties in IS 16700: 2017, Clause no.
7.2, and the out of plane stiffness modifiers are reduced. Out-
of-plane stiffness modifiers for slab are consideredas0.25Ig
(25% of moment of inertia) in model 1, 0.2 Ig in model 2, 0.1
Ig in model 3 and 0.01 Ig in model 4. For the remaining
structural elements stiffness modifier values are taken as
mentioned in IS 16700:2017.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The research work which has been carried out previously on
stiffness reduction of reinforced concrete elements is
reviewed. An investigation of effect of concrete cracking on
the lateral response of building structures is carried out by
Ahmed et.al. (2008)(5). Theyexamined theeffectofconcrete
cracking on itsstiffness. Theycarried out thepresentworkto
study the quantitative effect of cracking and deflections
amplification on the response of RCC building. The building

with different aspect ratio and different relative height are
analyzed. They carried out analysis of structures using
STAAD PRO software.
Sang-Whan Han et.al. (2009) (6) developed equations for
calculating slab stiffness reduction factor in the Effective
beam width model (EBWM) with respect to applied moment
(Ma) normalized by cracking moment (Mcr) by conducting
nonlinear regression analysis using stiffness reduction
factors estimated from collected test results of 20 interior
and 10 exterior slab-column connection specimens.
D. P. N. Kontoni et.al. (2018) (11) performed a time history
analysis by using SAP2000 software on thirteen models of
12-story RC buildingsinordertoillustratethecontributionof
column stiffness and column cross sections (square or
rectangular), beam stiffness and slab stiffness, building floor
plans (square or rectangular) on building resistance to an
earthquake. In order to investigate what percentage each
type of element contributes to the overall performance of an
high-rise building under seismic load, the stiffness of each
type of element is reduced by 10% to 90%. From the
literature survey it has been observed that:
1. Slab stiffness has impact on overall behavior of building
subjected to earthquake. In absenceofstiffnessmodifiers,
the structure would be stiffer and thus attract higher
lateral forces due to earthquake.
2. As the slab moment due to lateral loads increases, more
cracks will propagate in the slabs and the slab stiffness
will decrease due to crack formation. Thus, the reduction
in slab stiffness due to the effect of cracks should be
reflected in the analysis of reinforced concrete building.
3. Ductile reinforced concrete structures experience large
plastic deformations during an earthquake.
4. Cracking due to seismic shock are different for different
configuration of structure and their age.
5. We can incorporate approximately the effect of crack in
structural analysis of R.C.C. Buildings to find responsible
response of the structure to ground movement by
considering values of stiffness modifier.
3. MODELLING OF STRUCTURE
For the analysis high rise RC building, located in zone III
having irregular configuration in the plan of the buildinghas
been considered. The building comprising of Ground + 32
floors + Terrace. Total height of the building is 109.25 m
from foundation to terrace, with typical floor to floor height
3.05m. Total plan dimension is36.7mx33m. Raftfoundation
resting on rock/hard soil has been considered in the
analysis. Structural system is a shear wall structure. A
response spectrum analysis by ETABS 18 software was
performed on four 3D modelsofsame32-storyRCCbuilding,
for the ultimate condition of the building i.e. under factored
loads. In the analysis of all four models only out-of-plane
stiffness modifiers for slabs are changing and values of
stiffness modifiers for other structural elementsaresame as
per IS 16700:2017.
Model 1: Model considering in plane stiffness modifiers(f11,
f22, f12) & out-of-plane stiffness modifiers (m11,m22,m12)
for slab as 0.25 (as mentioned in IS 16700:2017)
f22, f12) for slab as 0.25 & out-of-plane stiffness modifiers
(m11, m22, m12) for slab as 0.20
(m11, m22, m12) for slab as 0.10
(m11, m22, m12) for slab as 0.01
Figure 1 and 2 shows the mathematical model and the
typical floor plan of ETABS Model.
Fig-1: Mathematical Model

Fig -2: Typical Floor Plan of ETABS Model
The details of the grade of the concreteusedatvariousfloors
are given in Table-2.
Table -2: Grade of Concrete
Structural
Element
Cube Compressive Strength (fck)
Columns/
Shear
Walls
Foundation to 9th floor – 60 N/mm²(M60)
9th floor to 20TH floor- 50 N/mm²(M50)
20th floor to Terrace floor- 40 N/mm²(M40)
Beams
and Slabs
Ground to 9th floor - 45 N/mm²(M45)
10th floor to 20TH floor- 40 N/mm²(M40)
21st floor to Terrace floor- 30 N/mm²(M30)
In the analysis, the floor slabs are assigned as shell (shell
thin) element and are considered as semi rigid diaphragms.
Steel Reinforcement are Thermo-MechanicallyTreated bars.
Specified characteristic field strength (fy) is 500 N/mm².
Modulus of elasticity (Es) is 2.0 x 10^5 Mpa.
Basic Design Wind Speed is 44 m/sec.
DL=1.5 to 5.5 KN/m^2 (on various areasaccordingtousage)
LL=2 to 5 KN/m^2 (on various areas according to usage)
Seismic loads are determined from IS 1893:2016 (Part 1),
Clause no. 7.6.2 (a) based on the following parameters:
Seismic Zone: III
Seismic Zone Factor (Z) = 0.16
Importance Factor (I) = 1.2
Response Reduction Factor (R) = 4
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results obtained are compared by considering
parameters such as top storey displacement, story drift,
major moment and required reinforcement percentage of
shear wall at base.
Top Story Displacement:
The deflection due to the designed lateral force should not
exceed H/250, as earthquake is the governing factor.
Therefore, the maximum permissibleearthquakelimitinthis
case is 109.25*1000/250 = 437 mm
The top storey displacement in X directionforallfourmodels
is shown in Table-3. Also, the effect of top storey
displacement in X direction is presented in figure 3.
Table -3: Top Story Displacement in X Direction
MODEL NO. Top Storey Displacement In X Direction
(mm)
MODEL 1 79.084
MODEL 2 82.858
MODEL 3 93.927
MODEL 4 119.008
Fig-3: Top Story Displacement in X Direction
The top storey displacement in Y directionforallfourmodels
is shown in Table-4.

Also, the effect of top storey displacement in X direction is
presented in figure 4.
Table -4: Top Story Displacement in Y Direction
MODEL NO. Top Storey Displacement in Y Direction
(mm)
MODEL 1 138.641
MODEL 2 145.664
MODEL 3 164.766
MODEL 4 194.697
Fig-4: Top Story Displacement in Y Direction
Table 3 and 4 shows values of lateral displacement at top of
building due to earthquake in positive X and Y direction.
From the graphs in Fig 3 and 4, it is observed that as the out-
of-plane stiffness modifier of slab decreases the lateral
displacement due to earthquake forces in X and Y direction
increases.
Story Drift:
Story drift is the lateral displacement of a storyrelativetothe
story below. The story drift in any story due to the designed
lateral force should not exceed 0.004 times story height (IS
1893-2002, clause 7.11.1). Story drift ratio is story drift
divided by the story height. The values reported in ETABS
are divided by story height. Therefore, the maximum
permissible earthquake limit in this case is 0.004.
Table -5 gives the values of the story drift inXdirectionforall
four models at different story level. Also the effect is
illustrated in figure 5.
Table -5: Story Drifts in X Direction
Story
Level
Story Drifts in X Direction
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
TERRACE 0.000707 0.000735 0.00082 0.001103
Story32 0.000736 0.000763 0.000845 0.001127
Story31 0.000761 0.000787 0.000868 0.001153
Story30 0.00078 0.000806 0.000888 0.001181
Story29 0.000796 0.000823 0.000909 0.001207
Story28 0.000811 0.000838 0.000932 0.001233
Story27 0.000824 0.000852 0.000955 0.001257
Story26 0.000836 0.000865 0.000978 0.001281
Story25 0.000848 0.000878 0.001 0.001304
Story24 0.000859 0.000896 0.001022 0.001325
Story23 0.000873 0.000915 0.001043 0.001344
Story22 0.000888 0.000931 0.00106 0.00136
Story21 0.000897 0.000941 0.00107 0.001369
Story20 0.000902 0.000946 0.001076 0.001374
Story19 0.00091 0.000954 0.001084 0.001379
Story18 0.000915 0.00096 0.00109 0.001381
Story17 0.00092 0.000965 0.001094 0.00138
Story16 0.000923 0.000968 0.001096 0.001375
Story15 0.000925 0.000969 0.001096 0.001365
Story14 0.000924 0.000968 0.001092 0.001352
Story13 0.00092 0.000963 0.001083 0.001333
Story12 0.000913 0.000954 0.00107 0.00131
Story11 0.000901 0.000941 0.001052 0.00128
Story10 0.000886 0.000925 0.00103 0.001244
Story9 0.00087 0.000907 0.001006 0.001204
Story8 0.000854 0.000887 0.000979 0.00116
Story7 0.000821 0.000852 0.000935 0.001096
Story6 0.000783 0.00081 0.000882 0.00102
Story5 0.000667 0.000689 0.000748 0.000861
Story4 0.000536 0.000552 0.000594 0.000675
Story3 0.000576 0.000589 0.000627 0.000702
Story2 0.000426 0.000434 0.000451 0.000495
Story1 0.000295 0.000301 0.000316 0.000347
GL 0.000178 0.000179 0.000182 0.000188
Base 0 0 0 0

Fig-5: Story Drifts in X Direction
Table -6 gives the values of the story drift inYdirectionforall
four models at different story level. Also the effect is
illustrated in figure 6.
Table -6: Story Drifts in Y Direction
Story Level Story Drifts in Y Direction
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
TERRACE 0.001435 0.001524 0.001774 0.002189
Story32 0.001512 0.001598 0.001836 0.002227
Story31 0.001534 0.00162 0.00186 0.02255
Story30 0.001564 0.00165 0.00189 0.002283
Story29 0.00159 0.001676 0.001916 0.002308
Story28 0.001613 0.001699 0.001938 0.002328
Story27 0.001632 0.001718 0.001957 0.002345
Story26 0.001648 0.001734 0.001973 0.002359
Story25 0.001662 0.001748 0.001986 0.00237
Story24 0.001673 0.001759 0.001996 0.002377
Story23 0.001679 0.001765 0.002001 0.002378
Story22 0.001682 0.001768 0.002001 0.002372
Story21 0.001676 0.001761 0.001992 0.002357
Story20 0.001659 0.001744 0.001973 0.002334
Story19 0.001652 0.001734 0.001959 0.002311
Story18 0.001637 0.001718 0.001939 0.002283
Story17 0.00162 0.0017 0.001915 0.00225
Story16 0.001598 0.001676 0.001886 0.00221
Story15 0.001572 0.001647 0.001851 0.002162
Story14 0.00154 0.001613 0.001808 0.002107
Story13 0.001501 0.001571 0.001758 0.002042
Story12 0.001455 0.001521 0.001699 0.001967
Story11 0.0014 0.001463 0.00163 0.00188
Story10 0.001336 0.001395 0.00155 0.001781
Story9 0.001263 0.001317 0.001461 0.001674
Story8 0.001192 0.001241 0.001372 0.001569
Story7 0.001115 0.001161 0.001281 0.001457
Story6 0.001029 0.00107 0.001176 0.001331
Story5 0.000871 0.000902 0.000985 0.001106
Story4 0.000649 0.000671 0.000727 0.000809
Story3 0.000681 0.000704 0.000763 0.000838
Story2 0.000456 0.000469 0.000504 0.000546
Story1 0.000336 0.000344 0.000364 0.000392
GL 0.000196 0.000199 0.000204 0.000221
Base 0 0 0 0
Fig-6: Story Drifts in Y Direction
From the Table 5 and 6 it has been observed that as the out-
of-plane stiffness of slab decreases the story drifts increases.
The values of story drifts are within limit. A comparative
graph for Maximum story drift due to earthquake in X and Y
direction is shown in figure 5 and 6.
Shear wall moment at base:
As stiffness of slab decreases,majormoment(M33)atbaseof
some shear walls increases. Increasing moments in some
shear walls are shown here. Table 7, 8 and 9 gives moments

at base of shear walls W11(P13,P13A),W30(P63),W41(P51,
P51A) respectively in all four models.
From Tables 7, 8, 9 it is observed that as the out-of-plane
stiffness modifier of slab decreases, major moment (M3) at
base of some shear walls increases. The effect is represented
graphically in figures 7, 8 and 9.
Table -7: Moment at Base in Shear Wall W11(P13, P13A)
Pier
Label
M3 (KN-m) at Ground Floor
MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4
P13 1938.8763 1972.6537 2072.2538 2300.6891
P13A 144.6 145.9 148.2 148.8
Fig-7: Moment at Base in Shear Wall W11(P13, P13A)
Table -8: Moment at Base in Shear Wall W30(P63)
Pier
Label
M3 (KNm) at Ground Floor
P63 919.4005 933.471 970.8891 1032.1874
Fig-8: Moment at Base in Shear Wall W30(P63)
Table -9: Moment at Base in Shear Wall W41(P51, P51A)
Pier
Label
M3 (KNm) at Ground Floor
P51 5897.4122 6042.0525 6359.4027 6734.5908
P51A 248.8 251.3 254.6 258.8
Fig-9: Moment at Base in Shear Wall W41(P51, P51A)
Required reinforcement percentage in shear wall at base:
Maximum required reinforcement % in shear wall depends
on wind and earthquake loads anticipated at the location.
Minimum required reinforcement % in shear wall is 0.25%.
Graph shows required reinforcement % in a particular shear
wall at base in all four models.

Table -10: Required Reinforcement % in shear wall
W11(P13, P13A) at base
Pier
Label
Required Reinforcement % in shear wall at base
P13 0.37 0.44 0.66 1.16
P13A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.46
Fig-10: Required Reinforcement % in shear wall W11(P13,
P13A) at base
Table -11: Required Reinforcement % in shear wall
W41(P51, P51A) at base
Pier
Label
Required Reinforcement % in shear wall at base
P51 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.52
P51A 1.72 1.77 1.85 2.31
Fig-11: Required Reinforcement % in shear wall W41(P51,
P51A) at base
From Tables 10 and 11 it is observed that as the stiffness
modifier of slab decreases the required reinforcement % at
base of some shear walls increases. Hence some shear walls
should be strengthened by addition of steel reinforcementto
take higher moments, so that they are not under designed in
earthquake.Figure10and11showsgraphicalrepresentation
of required reinforcement % in shear walls at base.
5. CONCLUSIONS
From the present study following broad conclusions are
drawn:
1. In the structural analysis of R.C.C. building model
considered; effect of crack is incorporated
approximately by further reduction in stiffness of slab
element to attain the maximum resistance against
earthquakes.
2. Stiffness modifiers are used to reduce out of plane
stiffness of the slab element by decreasing moment of
inertia upto 20%, 10% and 1%.
3. Reducing out of plane stiffness of slab to less than 10%
the slab will only transmit in-plane forces and will not
be able to contribute to resist any bending moments.
4. Slab will not take part in load bearing and whole load
will directly transfer through the slab to supporting
structural elements. Hence, beams located under the
slab will generate higher moments.
Therefore, supporting structural elements (beams, shear
walls) should be strengthened by addition of steel
reinforcement to take higher moments, so that they are
not under designed in earthquake.
REFERENCES
[1] Park, R., & Robertson, R. G. (1965). “ The lateral stiffness
and strength required to ensure membraneactionatthe
ultimate load of a reinforced concrete slab-and-beam
floor”. Magazine of Concrete Research,17(53),222–224.
https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1965.17.53.222
[2] Marti, P., & Kong, K. (1987). “Response of reinforced
concrete slab elements to torsion” . Journal ofStructural
Engineering, 113 (5), 976–993.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)07339445(1987)113:5
(976)
[3] Paulay, T. (2001). “A re-definition of the stiffness of
reinforced concrete elements and its implications in
seismic design”. Structural Engineering International,
11(1), 36–41.
https://doi.org/10.2749/101686601780324287
[4] Kim, H.-S., & Lee, D.-G. (2005). “Efficient analysis of flat
slab structures subjected to lateral loads” . Engineering

Structures", 27(2), 251–263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.10.005
[5] Mohd, mohd &Khan,Dad&Wamiq,Muhammad.(2008).
“Effect of concrete cracking on the lateral response of
RCC buildings”. ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING (BUILDING AND HOUSING). 9. 25-34.
[6] Han, S.-W., Park, Y.-M., & Kee, S.-H. (2009). “Stiffness
reduction factor for flat slab structures under lateral
loads”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(6), 743–
750. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-
541x.0000001
[7] Zhong, J., Gardoni, P., & Rosowsky, D. (2010). “Stiffness
degradation and time to cracking of cover concrete in
reinforced concrete structures subject to corrosion.”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 136(2), 209–219.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0000074
[8] Vidović, D., Grandic, D., & Šćulac, P. (2012). Effective
stiffness for structural analysis of buildings in
earthquake. 4th International Conference Civil
Engineering - Science and Practice.
[9] Yuan, H. J., Cao, L., & Deng, L. H. (2013). “Research on
out-plane bending stiffness of multi-ribbed slab
structure”. AdvancedMaterialsResearch,838-841,597–
600.https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.8
38-841.597
[10] Athira Haridas and S.A Rasal (2022) “Seismic Behaviour
of High Rise Building with Composite Shear Wall”
International Journal of Innovative Research In
Technology (ISSN: 2349-6002), Volume 8, Issue- 11, pp
278 – 284
[11] Huzefa Attarwala and S. A. Rasal (2022) “Lateral Design
of Modern High Rise Structure Using Outriggers With
Belt Truss System: An overview” Journal of Emerging
Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR)
www.jetir.org Volume 9, Issue 4 pp 114-121
[12] Nguyen, M. C., & Pham, P. T. (2017). “An investigationon
the behaviour and stiffness of reinforced concrete slabs
subjected to torsion”. IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, 164, 012017.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/164/1/012017
[13] Kontoni, D.-P. N., & Farghaly, A. A. (2018). “Stiffness
effects of structural elements on the seismicresponseof
RC High-Rise Buildings”. Archives of Civil Engineering,
64(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.2478/ace-2018-0001
[14] Tena-Colunga, A., & Liga-Paredes, A. E. (2020).
“Approximation of lateral stiffness for walls with two
bands of openings considering slab stiffness effects”.
Journal of Building Engineering, 30, 101310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101310
[15] Swikrut Patil and S.A. Rasal (2017), “BehaviourofBeam-
Column Joint on Different Shapes of RC Framed
Structures: A Review”, International Journal of Science
and Research (IJSR). ISSN (Online): pp 2319-7064, Vol.
6, issue-3, March 2017, www.ijsr.net, paper id: ART
20172238.
[16] Mithaiwala, M.E., Patil, A.A., & Khadake, D.V. (2020). “A
Review on Effect of Different Set of Stiffness Modifiers
Varying Through Height of Structure on Analysis of
Multi-Story R.C.C. Structure”. International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)Volume:
07 Issue: 08
[17] Aniket Kale and S.A. Rasal (2017), “Seismic and Wind
Analysis of Multistorey Building: A Review”,
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR).
ISSN (Online): pp 2319-7064, Vol. 6, issue-3, March
2017, www.ijsr.net, paper id: ART 20172033.
[18] Gudmand-Høyer, T. (2004). “Stiffness of concrete slabs”
Volume 4. BYG. DTU.
[19] IS 456-2000, “Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of
Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards, 4th revision,
2000.
[20] IS 1893 part 1-2016, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structure Part 1 General Provisions and
Buildings”, Bureau of Indian Standards, 6th revision,
2016.
[21] IS 13920-2016, “Ductile Design and Detailing of
Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic
Forces-Code of Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
1st revision, 2016.
[22] IS 16700-2017, “Criteria for Structural Safety of Tall
Buildings”, Bureau of Indian Standards, 2017.
[23] ACI 318-19, “Building Code RequirementsforStructural
Concrete”, American Concrete Institute, 2019.

IMPACT OF REDUCTION IN STIFFNESS OF SLAB ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF RCC STRUCTURE

More Related Content

Similar to IMPACT OF REDUCTION IN STIFFNESS OF SLAB ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF RCC STRUCTURE (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IMPACT OF REDUCTION IN STIFFNESS OF SLAB ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF RCC STRUCTURE