comparative analysis between reinforced cement … · the work includes design of g+6, g+8,g+10...

Journal of Analysis and Computation (JAC)

(An International Peer Reviewed Journal), www.ijaconline.com, ISSN 0973-2861

ICASETMP-2019

Saiprasad R Mandhare, V. R. Rathi, P. K. Kolase 1

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN REINFORCED CEMENT

CONCRETE, STEEL STRUCTURE AND LIGHT WEIGHT HOT

ROLLED STEEL STRUCTURE BY USING E-TABS.

Saiprasad R Mandhare1, V. R. Rathi2, P. K. Kolase3

1Post Graduate Student 2Professor, 3Associate Professor

1,2,3 Department of Civil Engineering, Pravara Rural College of Engineering, Loni, Maharashtra, India.

ABSTRACT

The software investigation of reinforced cement concrete, steel structure and light weight hot rolled

steel structure is analysis for seismic forces and wind forces . These are compared for base shear,

displacement etc. In this study, a comparison is made of the wind analysis and seismic response of

G+6, G+8, G+10 storeys of reinforced cement concrete steel structure and light weight hot rolled

steel structure. Three different heights of buildings low and medium rise in zone V is considered.

For such analysis E-tabs Software is used. 4 bay G+6, G+8, G+10 story structure was analyzed for

dynamic earthquake using response spectrum method. The results obtained are Base shear,

displacement. This paper intends to demonstrate comparison between RCC, steel structure and light

weight hot rolled steel structure can be efficient, evaluating its effectiveness in terms of base shear

and storey displacement reductions.

Keywords—RC Building, light weight hot rolled steel structure, Response Spectrum Analysis, E-

tabs.

1. INTRODUCTION

With the changing weather and site conditions the modern construction materials should be

selected accordingly. Steel structures are widely used in high-rise, residential high-rise steel structures

are very common in the developed countries. The use of light weight hot rolled Steel structures in

construction industry is very low in India compared to many developing countries [5]. The current

development needs of India as huge potential for increasing volume of steel in construction.

Exploring Steel as an alternative construction material and not using it where it is economical is a

heavy loss for the country [6]. During the last two decades considerable advances have been

accomplished in the area of seismic protection of structures, furthermore new promising systems have

been developed which can be incorporated in structures to improve their response when exited by

earthquakes [9]. So, it is too necessary to use some computer based software which gives more

accurate results and also gives reduce of time. E-tabs is the structural software is nowadays accepted

by structural engineers which can solve typical problem like static analysis, seismic analysis using

various load combination to confirms various codes such as IS 456:2000,1893:2002.These systems,

also known as earthquake-protection systems, consisting of passive, active, semi-active or hybrid

devices can considerably minimize the seismic demand of buildings and structures. Seismic design or

analysis attempts to make structures that do not collapse under strong earthquake shaking elements

[13]. Non-structural components may consist of furniture, equipment, partitions, curtain wall systems,

piping, electrical equipment and many other items. Non-structural components are sensitive to large

floor accelerations and displacements. When a building is subjected to an earthquake ground motion,

the building induces motion, resulting in floor accelerations higher than the ground acceleration [14].

Hence to innovate earthquake resisting design approach to reduce such type of structural damages

there are two basic technologies used to protect buildings from damaging earthquake effects. Three

different types of 3D and 2Dmodels of RCC, steel structure and light weight hot rolled steel structure

building are prepared for base shear and displacement using e-tabs software.. The results obtained

http://www.ijaconline.com/

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE, STEEL

STRUCTURE AND LIGHT WEIGHT HOT ROLLED STEEL STRUCTURE BY USING E-TABS


from each of the model are compared with each other to determine the best construction material. To

reduce to earthquake effects we can provide base isolation system or different type of dampers to

structures.

1.1 Light weight hot rolled steel structure

Steel frame is building technique with skeleton frame of vertical steel columns and

horizontal I section beams, constructed in a rectangular grid to support the floors, roof and walls of a

building which are all attached to the frame structures of building. The construction of

the skyscraper possible is possible due to this technique. The rolled steel profile of steel columns takes

the shape of "I". Square and round sections of steel can also be used, often filled with concrete. Steel

beams are connected to the columns with bolts and threaded fasteners [5]. Lightweight steel framed

(LSF) structural elements in buildings construction provide a way of raising building sustainability.

These structural elements have several advantages, such as presenting a great potential for recycling

and reuse, allowing the conservation of natural resources and the environment. The LSF construction

system is described and analyzed in order to show its main advantages and drawbacks. The

assessment of embodied and operational energy is essential to perform a life cycle analysis [5]. The

reduction of both energies consumption is crucial to increase the sustainability performance. Special

focus is given to describe and exemplify several strategies for improvement of thermal performance

and energy efficiency of LSF buildings.

1.2 Reinforced Cement Concrete

Plain cement concrete has very low tensile strength. To improve the tensile strength

of concrete some sort of requirement is needed which can take up the tensile stresses developed in the

structure. The reinforced concrete has innumerable uses in construction. For e.g.: in building,

flyovers, water tanks, etc.

1.3 Objective

The study of the dynamic characteristics of the reinforced cement concrete and light

weight hot rolled steel structures of multi storey building. To examine the influence compare the

seismic response of multi storey building for various zones. The work includes design of G+6,

G+8,G+10 storey reinforced concrete and light weight hot rolled steel symmetric building in

accordance with IS1893:2002 provisions 4 bay G+6,G+8,G+10 storey structure was analyzed for

dynamic earthquake using Response Spectrum Analysis. Modelling and analysis is done using E-tabs

Software. The design is based on IS1893-2002 & IS456-2000. The loads considered in analysis are

dead load, live load, seismic load along with the combinations as specified in IS.

The specific objectives of the study are:

1. To carry out modelling and analysis of reinforced concrete, steel structure and light weight hot

rolled steel buildings by using E-tabs software and compared their results, to identify the effectiveness

of system.

2. To evaluate story displacement in case of multi-story building structures.

3. Characterizing the structures and the study for the parameters influencing its behaviour during

earthquake.

4. To carry out comparison between reinforced concrete, steel structure and light weight hot rolled

steel building on the basis of their dynamic properties like reaction, displacement, base shear, bending

moment.

https://civildigital.com/design-of-reinforced-concrete-structures-is456-recommendations-part-2/



ICASETMP-2019


1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW

There are various methods have been proposed in the literature for achieving the

optimum performance of structures subjected to earthquake excitation. Previous studies was on four

various multi-storeyed commercial buildings i.e. G+12, G+16, G+20, G+24 are analysed by using

STAAD-Pro software design and cost estimation is carried out using MS-Excel programming and

from obtained result comparison can be made between R.C.C and composite structure.[Shweta Wagh

et al.2014][5].

So, there is no need for formwork because the steel beam is able to sustain the self weight

of steel and concrete by itself or with the assistance of a few temporary props. Also study deals with

the design of composite building with fixed base. In this study seismic analysis of a multi level car

park is made using different construction material, like Concrete, Structural steel and Composite of

Structural Steel and Concrete. Effect of each building is studied with respect to time period, base

shear, total dead load and most important cost of different schemes.[Nitin Warade et al.][6].

But it is possible that composite construction can be more beneficial in case of medium and

high rise buildings. Steel-concrete composite construction can be built in place of RCC structures to

get maximum advantage of steel and concrete and to produce efficient and economic structures. This

shows comparison of various aspects of building construction for steel, RCC as well as composite

buildings. [Bhavin H. Zaveri et al. 2016][7].

These are subjected to several types of forces, such as static forces due to dead and live

loads and dynamic forces due to earthquake. It focuses on static and dynamic analysis of buildings.

[Kakpure, Gauri G et al.][8] These changing aspects can be studied by modelling the multi-storeyed

building under the effect of seismic and wind forces and comparing various parameters like the

displacements in the building, column forces and moments generated in the building.

It discusses the analysis & design procedure adopted for the evaluation of symmetrical high

rise multi-storied buildings under effect of Wind and Earthquake forces. In these buildings, R.C.C.

and Steel are considered to resist lateral forces resisting system. This study examines G+10, G+15 and

G+20 storied buildings using STAAD.ProV8i. [Mandlik, Avani et al.][9]

Three different types of 3D and 2D models of same building are prepared using stad Pro

software. These models are analysed for shear forces and bending moments using stad Pro software.

The results obtained from each of the model are compared with each other to determine the best

construction material. [Jyothi D N 2013][10].

Concrete structures are massive and more seismic weight and less avoidance while Steel

structures more deflection and ductility to the structure, which is valuable in opposing earthquake

strengths. Therefore the point of present investigation is to look at seismic execution of G+6, G+12,

G+18 without shear wall and G+18 with shear wall for reinforced concrete and composite structures

arranged in quake zone III. All frames are design under same gravity loading. Response spectrum

method is used for investigation seismic examination. E-tabs programming is utilized.[mohammed

imran et al.][11]

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

The RC buildings are subjected to dynamic load of earthquake. Analysis of seismic system was

analyzed by response spectrum method. However the building subjected to dynamic load and wind

load is applied to structure along with X and Y direction respectively. The response spectrum method

can also be applied for lateral load analysis; hence analysis is carried out using E-tabs software.





2.1 Modelling of structure

2.1.1 Description of Building

Structural model of building shows the idealized mathematical model of the G+6,

G+8,G+10 storey RC building ,Steel and light weight steel structures considered for the present

study. The modelling procedure of building in E-tabs and design steps of response spectrum analysis

using and seismic design an wind analysis procedure has been done using IS1893:2000 (part 1) and

IS875:1987PART 3 for the following data is used

Considered G+6, G+8, G+10 RC structure

Plan Dimensions: 12 m X 12 m

No. Of bays: X direction: 4 Nos., Y direction – 4 No.

Size of bays: X direction: 3m, Y direction – 3m.

Height of floor: 3.0m

No. Of Column: 25

Size of Column: 0.53x0.30m,0.60x0.60m,0.65x0.65m

Size of Beams: 0.23m X 0.45m

Size of slabs: Two way slab with thickness 0.175m

Concrete Mix design: M – 30

Fig.1: Framing plan for model-I.



ICASETMP-2019


Fig.2.: 3D view of model-I.

Considered G+6, G+8, G+10 steel structure

Plan Dimensions 12 m X 12 m

No. Of bays: X direction 4 Nos., Y direction – 4 Nos.

Size of bays: X direction 3m, Y direction – 3m.

Height of floor 3m

No. Of Column 25

Section of Column 2 ISMC 200,350,400 front facing

Section of Beams ISMB 200,350,350

Size of slabs Two way slab with thickness 0.150m

Fig.3: Framing plan for model-III.





Fig.4: 3D view of model-IV

Considered, G+6, G+8, G+10 light weight hot rolled steel structure

Plan Dimensions 12 m X 12 m

No. of bays: X direction 4 Nos., Y direction – 4 Nos.

Size of bays: X direction 3m, Y direction – 3m.

Height of floor 3m

No. of Column 25

Section of Column 2 ISLC 200 front facing(200x450)

Section of Beams ISLB 200

Size of slabs Two way slab with thickness 0.125m

Fig.5: Framing plan for model-V.



ICASETMP-2019


Fig.6: 3D view of model-VI

2.1.2 Load Consideration

Live load: 2.0 kN/m2

Floor finish: 1.25 kN/m2

Wall load: 3 x0.23x20

=14 kN/m =14 kN/m (Inclusive plaster)/(external wall)

2.1.3Dynamic consideration For response spectrum cases from is 1893:2002

Table 1 Dynamic Consideration

X-direction Y-Direction

Damping 0.05 0.05

Zone V V

Zone factor 0.36 0.36

Response reduction 3 3

Soil type II(soft soil) II(soft soil)

Importance factor 1 1

.





For wind analysis case from IS875 (part III):1987

Table 2. Wind load parameters

X-direction Y-Direction

City Mumbai Mumbai

Basic wind speed 44 44

Terrain category 2 2

Structure class B B

Risk coefficient 1 1

Topography 1 1

3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 3.1Maximum Displacement(Storey Displacement)

Maximum point displacement value at top story is considered and it is to be

compared with RCC building ,Steel and light weight steel buildings for G+6, G+8, G+10 storey

building and as shown in Fig.7, 8, 9 Respectively. From fig 7, 8, 9 it is observed that the point

displacement values are significantly increases for light weight hot rolled steel structure

building for G+6, G+8, and G+ 10.

Table 3: compression of displacement of RCC, Steel and light weight hot rolled steel structure

Structures for G+6

No. of story RCC(displacement in

mm)

Steel(displacement in

mm)

LWS

(displacement in

mm)

7 36.20 69.28 166.36

6 33.43 63.46 157.98

5 29.08 54.80 142.39

4 23.49 43.75 120.92

3 17.13 31.15 91.95

2 10.43 18.06 59.57

1 3.99 6.23 25.26



ICASETMP-2019


Fig.7 Maximum displacement of G+6 structures.

Table 4: Comparison between displacement of RCC, Steel and light weight hot rolled steel

structure Structures for G+8


mm)

Steel(displacement in

mm)

LWS(displacement

in mm)

9 45.79 73.02 255.65

8 43.27 69.27 246.95

7 39.53 63.42 231.48

6 34.63 55.75 209.39

5 28.81 46.73 181.36

4 22.36 36.78 148.23

3 15.59 26.30 110.45

2 8.89 15.69 70.71

1 3.02 5.82 29.66

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Dis

pla

cme

nt

in m

m

no. of stories

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure





Fig.8 Maximum displacement of G+8 structures for RCC, steel structure and LWS

Table 5: Comparison between displacement of RCC, Steel and light weight hot rolled steel

structure Structures for G+10


mm)

Steel (displacement in

mm)

LWS(displacement

in mm)

11 57.73 77.50 405.82

10 55.28 75.50 395.199

9 51.81 72.71 377.43

8 47.29 68.39 352.50

7 41.87 62.82 320.95

6 35.73 56.31 283.46

5 29.09 49.14 240.76

4 22.14 41.55 193.71

3 15.13 33.74 143.23

2 8.24 25.83 90.46

1 2.76 17.24 37.72

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Dis

pla

cem

ent

in m

m

No. of Stories

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure



ICASETMP-2019


Fig.9: Maximum displacement of G+10 structures for RCC, Steel and LWS.

3.2 Maximum Base Shear

Maximum value of base shear at base is considered and it is to be compared with RCC

building, Steel structure and light weight hot rolled steel structure buildings for both G+6,

G+8,G+10 storey building and as shown in fig.10,11,12 respectively. From fig.10, 11, 12 it is

observed that the base shear values are less for steel, light weight hot rolled steel structure for

G+6, G+8,G+10 storey building as compared to RCC building.

Table 6: Comparison between base shear of RCC, Steel structure and light weight hot rolled

steel structure for G+6

Type of structures RCC building Steel building LWS building

Base shear(kN) 1718.05 492.40 589.3437

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dis

pla

cem

ent

in m

m

No. of Stories

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure

1718.05

492.4589.3437

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Bas

e s

hea

r in

kN

Type of structure

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure





Fig.10: Maximum base shear of G+6 structures.

Table 7: Comparison between base shear of RCC and light weight hot rolled steel structure

Structures for G+8


Base shear(kN) 2285.91 640.24 688.65

Fig11: Maximum base shear in G+8 storey building.

Table 8: Comparison between base shear of RCC and light weight hot rolled steel structure Structures

for G+10


Base shear(kN) 2406.10 687.45 871.55

2285.91

640.24 688.65

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Bas

e S

hea

r in

kN

Type of structure

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure



ICASETMP-2019


Fig.12: Maximum base shear in G+10 storey building.

3.3 Maximum axial force

Maximum value of axial force at centre of base is considered and it is to be compared

with RCC building, Steel structure and light weight hot rolled steel structure buildings for both

G+6, G+8,G+10 storey building and as shown in fig.13,14,15 respectively. From figure

13,14,15 it is observed that the axial force values are less due to loading on column for steel,

light weight hot rolled steel structure for G+6,G+8,G+10 storey building as compared to RCC

building.

Table 9: Comparison between axial force of RCC, Steel structure and light weight hot rolled

steel structure Structures for G+6


Axial force(kN) 1701.05 1464.5610 214.65

Fig.13: Maximum axial force in G+6 storey building.

2406.1

687.45871.55

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Bas

e s

hea

r in

kN

No. of stories

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure

1701.05

1464.561

214.56

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Axi

al f

orc

e in

kN

Type of structure

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure





Table 10: Comparison between axial force of RCC, Steel structure and light weight hot rolled

steel structure for G+8


Axial force(kN) 2303.95 1871.16 305.30


Table 11: Comparison between axial force of RCC, Steel structure and LWS Structures for

G+10


Axial force(kN) 4280.49 2094.96 435.63

2303.95

1871.16

305.3

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Axi

al f

orc

e in

kN

Type of Structure

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure



ICASETMP-2019



3.4 Maximum bending moment

Maximum value of bending moment is considered and it is to be compared with RCC

building, Steel structure and light weight hot rolled steel buildings for both G+6, G+8, G+10

storey building and as shown in fig.16,17,18 respectively. From figure 16, 17,18 it is observed

that the bending moment values are less due to loading on column for steel, light weight hot

rolled steel structure for G+6,G+8,G+10 storey building as compared to RCC building.

Table 12: Comparison between bending moment of RCC, Steel structure and light weight hot

rolled steel structure for G+6


Bending moment (kN) 134.2505 51.39 45.45

4280.49

2094.96

435.63

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Axi

al f

orc

e in

kN

Type of structure

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure

134.2505

51.3945.45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Ben

din

g m

om

ent

in k

N-m

Type of structure

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure





Fig.16: Maximum bending moment in G+6 storey building.

Table 13: Comparison between bending moment of RCC, Steel structure and light weight hot

rolled steel structure for G+8.




Table14: Comparison between bending moment of RCC, Steel structure and light weight hot

rolled steel structure for G+10




154.46

61.0254.34

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180B

end

ing

mo

men

t in

kN

-m

Type of Structure

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure

163.6

126.26

56.37

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Ben

din

g m

om

ent

in k

N-m

Type of structure

RCC Structure

Steel Structure

LWS Structure



ICASETMP-2019


4. CONCLUSIONS

1. from analysis we can concluded that light weight hot rolled steel structure have more

displacement than the RCC structure and steel structure because of light weight structure and

other loading factors.

2. from analysis we can concluded that steel structure have lower values for base shear at base

of building whereas RCC and light weight hot rolled steel structure has higher value of base

shear at base of the building for G+6,G+8,G+10 structures.

3. From analysis Base shear value is more in the zone V and that in the soft soil in RCC

structure. light weight hot rolled steel structure and steel structures are severely affected during

earthquakes especially in high seismic zones. light weight hot rolled steel structure and steel

structures building undergo more deformation than the RCC building and hence RCC building

must be preferred.

4. From analysis axial force value is more for the RCC structure than Steel and light weight hot

rolled steel structure due to more loading on RCC structure.

5. From analysis it is observed that bending moment for the steel and light weight hot rolled

steel structure is less because they having less loading as compared to RCC structure.

6. Drift of all structures is within permissible limit.

7. According to all above analysis it is to be observed that RCC structure have less displacement

and higher base shear as compare to steel and light weight hot rolled steel structure so we can

prefer RCC structure for mid rise and high rise projects. And steel, light weight steel structures

are only possible for low rise projects.





REFERENCES:

[1] IS 456:2000, Plain and reinforced concrete.

[2] IS 1893:2002, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Bureau of Indian

Standard, New Delhi.

[3] IS 800:2007, Code of practice for Steel structures, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.

[4] IS 875(part III):1987 code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for a building

and structures.

[5] Wagh, Shweta A., and U. P. Waghe. "Comparative Study of RCC and Steel Concrete

Composite Structures." Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, ISSN: 2248-9622.

[6] comparative study on analysis and design of composite structure Nitin m. Warade,P. J.

Salunke

[7] A Review on the Comparative Study of Steel, RCC and Composite Building Bhavin H. Zaveri ,

Jasmin A. Gadhiya , Hitesh K. Dhameliya Januray 2016

[8] Kakpure, Gauri G., and Ashok R. Mundhada. "Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic

Seismic Analysis of Multistoried RCC Building by ETAB: A Review." International Journal

of Emerging Research in Management &Technology 5 (2016): 17-20.

[9] Mandlik, Avani, S. K. Sharma, and Shahjad Mohammad. "Behaviour of Symmetrical RCC

and Steel Framed Structures Under Seismic and Wind Loading." (2016).

[10] Comparative analysis of RCC and steel structure Jyothi D N, February 2013.

[11] comparative analysis of reinforced concrete & composite structures subjected to static &

dynamic loads mohammed imran,shaik abdull, s.m.hasmi

[12] Comparative study of cost and time evaluation in RCC, steel & Composite high rise building

A.Sattainathan Sharma, G.R.Iyappan,J.Harish

[13] Youldash, S.O.H.R.A.B., 2014. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete buildings under

varying frequency contents (Doctoral dissertation).

[14] Sayed-Ahmed, Mahmoud. "Building with base isolation techniques." Al-Azhar University

Engineering Journal, JAUES7, no. 1 (2012): 147-159.

[15] Balaji.U and Selvarasan M.E “Design And Analysis of Multi Storied Building Under Static

And Dynamic Loading Condition Using ETABS.” International Journal of Technical

Research and Applications Volume 4, Issue 4. (July-Aug, 20160)

[16] Anirudh Gottala, Dr.shaik Yajdhani “Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic seismic

Analysis of Multistoried Building.” IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology &

Engineering | Volume 2 | Issue 01 | July 2015.

comparative analysis between reinforced cement … · the work includes design of g+6, g+8,g+10...

Documents