U Thesis

A
Dissertation Entitled
“Comparative Analytical Study of Seismic Response and

Cost of Multi-Storey (G+12) RCC, Steel & Steel-Concrete
Composite Building”
Submitted
In
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SUBMITTED BY
VARIYAVWALA JIGAR PRAMODKUMAR

(P15ST018)
GUIDED BY:
Prof. A. J. Shah
APPLIED MECHANICS DEPARTMENT
S. V. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
SURAT – 395007, GUJARAT (INDIA)
YEAR 2016-2017
SURAT, GUJARAT (INDIA)
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. Variyavwala Jigar Pramodkumar (Master of
technology in Structural Engineering) has successfully completed the seminar
work entitled “Comparative Analytical Study of Seismic Response and

Cost of Multi-Storey (G+12) RCC, Steel & Steel-Concrete Composite
Building” at S. V. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
SURAT in 2016-17.
Prof. A. J. Shah Dr. Y. D. Patil Dr. C. H. Solanki
Research Supervisor PG. In charge Head of Department
Applied mechanics Applied mechanics Applied mechanics

Department (AMD) Department (AMD) Department (AMD)
S. V. N. I. T., Surat. S. V. N. I. T., Surat. S. V. N. I. T., Surat.

SURAT, GUJARAT (INDIA)
EXAMINER CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. Va riya vwa la J ig ar

Pra mo d k uma r Master of technology in structural Engineering has
successfully completed the seminar work entitled “Comparative

Analytical Study of Seismic Response and Cost of Multi-Storey (G+12)
RCC, Steel & Steel-Concrete Composite Building” at S. V. NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SURAT in 2016-2017.
Examiner Examiner Chairmen

Dedicated in
Lotus feet of Krishna &
My beloved Parents
Abstract
Engineers are conversant with the problems elaborate in constructing either steel or
concrete building, as each of these materials has its own peculiarity. Steel members are
generally fabricated as component consisting of thin plate elements, so they are prone
to local and lateral buckling. Therefore they are checked for the failure due to buckling
and instability, whereas concrete members are generally thick and unlikely to buckle,
but they are inclined to creep and shrinkage with time. Therefore a system comprising
of steel-concrete composite structure is industrialised to take benefit of both the
material. Composite Construction combines the superior properties of both steel and
concrete along with lesser cost, speedy construction, fire protection etc.
Steel-concrete composite structures are is the most economical solution to the diverse
engineering design requirements of stiffness and strength. In several countries. In multi-
storey steel frame buildings this type of construction has become a common feature.
The simplest form of composite structures comprise a bare steel frame of common H-
type section columns supporting I-type section beams which in turn, support the
overlaid composite floor slab. Contrariwise, the composite floor slab consists of cold-
formed profiled steel sheets which act not only as the permanent formwork for an in
situ cast concrete slab but also as the appropriate tensile reinforcement. For buildings
which is required to resist earthquake loads, this economical structural solution is
relevant.
In the present work all three types of building as mentioned above i.e. steel, concrete
and composite multi storey buildings are modelled in ETABS 2015 version 15.2.2
integrated building design software. All three types of buildings are analysed by static
seismic coefficient method and Dynamic Response spectrum analysis method.
The results in terms of natural period, frequency, storey displacement, storey drift,
storey shear, storey moment and storey stiffness are compared for all models. The main
objective of the present study is to understand the seismic behaviour of multi-storey
RCC, Steel and Composite building.
S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page i

Acknowledgement
It gives me immense pleasure to express my sense of sincere gratitude towards respected

guide Prof. Ashok j. Shah for his constant encouragement and valuable guidance during
the completion of dissertation work. It is my peat privilege to express reflective
gratitude to my guide for giving me the fantastic opportunity of my lifetime to work
under his guidance. I am deeply beholden for the constructive criticism, constant
encouragement and concern to bring out my hidden ideas and channelize them to
perform my best.
I would like to thank my parents, Mr. Pramodkumar Variyavwala and Mrs. kamini
variyavwala just because of their blessings and good wishes I can make my dream come
true and special thanks to my spiritual guru as their guidance gives me encouragement
and dedication towards my work. I wish to express my heart felt gratitude and reverence
to my sisters Mrs. Megha Modi and Mrs. Mikki Modi for their magnanimous help
rendered during all phase of my research and helping me in all the possible ways to
complete my academic pursuit. I am enamored of Mr. Kiran Bodiwala and Mrs. Mala
Bodiwala for his moral support and encouragement throughout my study.
I would like to thank HOD Dr. C. H. Solanki sir and PG in-charge Dr. Y. D. Patil sir
who provided me opportunity to present the seminar. I would like to thank from the
bottom of my heart to Prof. S. A. Vasanwala sir for the support and encouragement
provided by him. I would like to thanks all faculty members of applied mechanics
department for helping me directly or indirectly in my report work.
I also express my sincere thanks towards all staff members and special thanks to my
friends who helped me in successfully completion of report work. I owe my sincere
thanks to my beasties Mr. Akshay Sheth, Mr. Tribhuvan Gedia, Mr. Pranav Desai, Mr.
Prabhat Jain.
Variyavwala Jigar Pramodkumar
(P15ST018)
S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page ii

Index
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................ ii
Index ............................................................................................................................. iii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. viii
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Indian Perspective ........................................................................................ 1

1.2.1 Development of Seismic zoning map ........................................................ 2
1.2.2 Design Methodology .................................................................................. 2
1.3 Structural modeling ..................................................................................... 3
1.4 Structural method of analysis ..................................................................... 3

1.4.1 Code based procedure for seismic analysis................................................ 5
1.5 An overview of composite construction ..................................................... 6
1.6 Objective of the study .................................................................................. 6
2. Seismic analysis methods and concept ............................................................... 7
2.1General ................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Analysis methods ................................................................................................ 9

2.2.1 Equivalent static coefficient method ............................................................. 9
2.2.2 Dynamic analysis ........................................................................................ 14
2.3 The time-history method ................................................................................. 17
2.4 The response spectrum method ...................................................................... 18
3. Aspect of composite structure ........................................................................... 21
3.1 General .............................................................................................................. 21
3.2 Composite Structures ...................................................................................... 22

3.2.1 Compensations of steel-concrete composite construction .......................... 22
S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page iii

3.2.2 Drawbacks of steel-concrete composite construction ................................. 23
3.3 Components of composite structure ............................................................... 24

3.3.1 Shear connectors ......................................................................................... 24
3.3.2 Composite beam.......................................................................................... 29
3.3.3 Composite floor .......................................................................................... 34
3.3.4 Composite Column ..................................................................................... 36
4. Literature review................................................................................................ 39
4.1 Previous History of Composite Construction ................................................ 39
4.2 Studies on Composite Construction ............................................................... 40
5. Problem formulation & software implementation .......................................... 50
5.1 Problem statement ........................................................................................... 50

5.1.1 Material data ............................................................................................... 50
5.1.2 Geometrical Data ........................................................................................ 51
5.1.3 Loading Data ............................................................................................... 51
5.1.4 Earthquake Data .......................................................................................... 51
5.1.5 Load combination ....................................................................................... 52
5.1.6 Member Sizes for Particular Building ........................................................ 53
5.1.7 General Member Size for All Type of Building ......................................... 56
5.2 About Etabs ...................................................................................................... 56
5.3 Software validation .......................................................................................... 57
5.4 Modeling of building using Etabs ................................................................... 59

5.4.1 Fixing Of Member Sizes ............................................................................. 60
5.4.2 Stepwise Procedure for Modeling of Building in Etabs ............................. 60
5.4.3 Modeling of Building for Current Problem in Etabs .................................. 61
5.5 Response spectrum analysis in Etabs ............................................................. 63
6. Analysis, Result and Discussion ........................................................................ 65
6.1 Storey shear, Storey moment, Storey displacement and Storey stiffness ... 65
6.1.1 Seismic weight ............................................................................................ 65
6.1.2 Storey shear and moment ............................................................................ 67
S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page iv

6.1.3 Storey displacement .................................................................................... 74
6.1.4 Storey stiffness ............................................................................................ 77
6.2 Time Period, Frequency and Storey Drift ..................................................... 80

6.2.1 Time period ................................................................................................. 80
6.2.2 Storey drift .................................................................................................. 82
6.3 Peck ground acceleration (PGA) .................................................................... 86
6.3 Cost analysis ..................................................................................................... 87
7. Conclusion and future scope ............................................................................. 88
7.1 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................ 88
7.2 Future scope ..................................................................................................... 90
8. References ........................................................................................................... 91
S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page v

List of Figures
2.1 Static application of load........................................................................................ 10
2.2 Response spectra for rock and soil sites for 5 % damping..................................... 12
3.3.1 Slip and slip strain ............................................................................................... 24
3.3.2 Uplift behaviour .................................................................................................. 25
3.3.3 Typical shear connectors as per IS: 11384 ......................................................... 26
3.4 Typical load slip curve ........................................................................................... 27
3.5 Load bearing mechanism of shear connectors ....................................................... 28
3.6 Moment capacities of section ................................................................................. 31
3.7 Use of effective width to allow for shear lag ......................................................... 33
3.8 Profile decking ....................................................................................................... 35
3.9 Typical cross section of composite columns and notation ..................................... 37
4.1 Composite Steel–Concrete Beams and Slabs, Car Park, Australia ........................ 40
5.1 Plan view of building ............................................................................................. 52
5.2 Beam grid of typical floor plan .............................................................................. 53
5.3 Software validation problem .................................................................................. 58
5.4 Software validation problem plan layout & elevation ........................................... 58
5.5 Defining material properties in Etabs .................................................................... 61
5.6 Steel columns in section designer .......................................................................... 62
5.7 Defining of slab in Etabs........................................................................................ 62
5.8 Defining of load cases in Etabs .............................................................................. 62
5.9 Defining response spectrum function in Etabs ...................................................... 63
5.10 Defining and scaling response spectrum load in Etabs ........................................ 64
6.1 Weight of the structure........................................................................................... 66
6.2 Storey shear for static analysis ............................................................................... 67
S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page vi

6.3 Comparison of storey shear for static and dynamic analysis ................................. 68
6.4 Storey moment for static analysis .......................................................................... 70
6.5 Storey moment for static and dynamic analysis..................................................... 71
6.6 Storey moment for static and dynamic analysis in y direction .............................. 73
6.7 Maximum storey displacement for static analysis in x direction ........................... 74
6.8 Maximum storey displacement for dynamic analysis in y direction ..................... 76
6.9 Storey stiffness for static analysis .......................................................................... 78
6.10 Storey stiffness for static and dynamic analysis .................................................. 78
6.11 Storey stiffness for static and dy. analysis in y direction ..................................... 79
6.12 Time period and frequency for different modes .................................................. 81
6.13 Storey drift for static analysis in x direction ........................................................ 83
6.14 Storey drift for dynamic analysis in x direction ................................................... 83
6.15 Storey drift for static analysis in y direction ........................................................ 85
6.16 Storey drift for static and dynamic analysis in y direction .................................. 86
S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page vii

List of Tables
5.1 Material data .......................................................................................................... 50
5.2 Load combination .................................................................................................. 52
5.3 RCC structure member size ................................................................................... 53
5.4 Steel structure member size ................................................................................... 54
5.5 Steel-concrete composite structure member size ................................................... 54
5.6 Comparison of software verification result ............................................................ 59
6.1 Weight of dif. structure .......................................................................................... 66
6.2 Storey shear in both x and y direction (KN) .......................................................... 67
6.3 Comparison of Storey shear for static and dynamic analysis (in %) ..................... 68
6.4 Comparison of Storey shear with respect to RCC building (in %) ........................ 69
6.5 Storey moment in x direction (KN-m) ................................................................... 70
6.6 Comparison of Storey moment for static and dynamic analysis ............................ 71
6.7 Comparison of Storey moment with respect to RCC............................................. 72
6.8 Storey moment in y direction (KN-m) ................................................................... 73
6.9 Maximum Storey displacement in x direction (mm) ............................................. 74
6.10 Comparison of Storey displacement for static and dynamic analysis .................. 75
6.11 Comparison of Storey displacement with respect to RCC building in x direction

(in %) ........................................................................................................................... 75
6.12 Maximum Storey displacement in y direction (mm) ........................................... 76
6.13 Storey stiffness in x direction (KN/m) ................................................................. 77
6.14 Comparison of s. stiffness with respect to RCC in x direction (in %) ................. 78
6.15 Storey stiffness in y direction (KN/m) ................................................................. 79
6.16 Time period (sec) ................................................................................................. 80
6.17 Storey drift in x direction (mm) ........................................................................... 82
S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page viii

6.18 Comparison of Storey drift for static and dynamic analysis ................................ 84
6.19 Comparison of Storey drift with respect to RCC building in x direction (in %) . 84
6.20 Storey drift in y direction (mm) ........................................................................... 85
6.21 Response Spectrum Accelerations ....................................................................... 86
7.1 Comparison of building ......................................................................................... 89
S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page ix

1. Introduction
1.1 General
Structures on the earth are largely subjected to two types of load i.e. static and dynamic.
Static loads are constant with time while dynamic loads are varying with time. On the
whole majority of the civil structures are designed with the assumption that all applied
loads are static. The effect of dynamic load is not being considered because the structure
is rarely subjected to dynamic loads, more its consideration in the analysis makes the
solution more complicated and time consuming. This aspect of ignoring dynamic forces
may sometimes become the cause of disaster. Particularly in case of earthquake.
An Earthquake is a natural disaster that unlike the other disasters like floods etc. leaves
no time for evacuation of people to safer places thus causing a huge loss of lives as well
as property. Hence designing our buildings to resist these seismic loads is the only
feasible alternative. Each damage case study has provided essential information for
refining the design and construction practices thus trying to protect the occupants of the
buildings. This chapter includes the code based procedure for seismic analysis,
structural modeling concept and objective of the present study.
1.2 Indian Perspective
Indian tectonic plate being one of the most active tectonic plates, India has faced a
number of fatal earthquakes that left thousands of people dying each time. The Bureau
of Indian standards (BIS) has been doing a considerable effort to diminish the hazards
due to these earthquakes. Scientists in India have concentrated on bringing up a code of
practice for seismic resistant design (IS 1893), which gives guidelines to Engineers on
the amount of forces to be accounted in the seismic regions. Improvement of Seismic
Zoning atlas has been a subject of research in India for the past 40 years. Seismic zoning
plot is a map that divides entire country into diverse regions according to the earthquake
prospective in those regions.
S.V. National institute of technology, surat Page 1

Introduction
1.2.1 Development of Seismic zoning map
BIS constituted a multi-disciplinary committee in 1960 to bring out a code for

earthquake resistant design. The first seismic zoning map was developed by this
committee using a statistical approach. the isoseismals of 23 major earthquakes, the
trend of principal tectonic features are used to develop a seven zone seismic zoning map
varying from Zone ‘0’ to Zone ‘VI’. This code was later found deficient as the
boundaries between seismic zones I and II were not clearly visible in some regions.
Also, the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) has assigned magnitudes to many
historical earthquakes using correlation relations. Therefore, the BIS committee revised
the seismic zoning map in 1966 to account this available information and to provide
additional emphasis on geology and tectonics. The number of zones remained
unchanged.
The 1967 Koyna earthquake (M 6.5) that occurred in peninsular shield of India has
forced the second revision of the code in 1970 to review the given low seismic status to
peninsular region. It was also decided to reduce the number of zones to five instead of
seven. In the latest revision of seismic zoning map that has been adopted in. IS 1893-
2002, the zone I is enhanced to zone II to make the total number of zones to four. It was
also decided to have an interim revision to review the seismic status of peninsular India
based on a probabilistic hazard analysis. IS 1893: 2002 recommended various zone
factors for Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) for the service life of 100 years.
For Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), which is expected once during the lifetime of the
structure, half of the MCE zone factor is to be considered.
1.2.2 Design Methodology
IS 1893 adopted a design philosophy to ensure that structures possess minimum strength
to
1. Resist minor earthquakes (< DBE) without damage,

2. Resist moderate earthquakes (DBE) without significant structural damage,
3. Resist major earthquakes (MCE) without collapse.
The revised code in 2002, considers the ductility in the form of a Response reduction
factor (R). It recommends different Importance factors (I) to consider the usage of the
building.

Introduction
The code recommends two methods of analysis namely Equivalent static load Method
and Dynamic Analysis. For calculating the Design Base Shear of the building using
Equivalent static load method. Design horizontal coefficient (A) has to be found out
using the seismic zone factor (Z). Importance factor (1). Response reduction factor (R)
and spectral acceleration coefficient )Sa/g) obtained from the Response spectrum curve
for the specified soil type and the structures fundamental time period.
The dynamic analysis is recommended for buildings of 40m in height situated in zones
IV & V and for irregular buildings of 12m or more in height situated in zones IV & V.
Code recommends response spectrum method of dynamic analysis with Complete

Quadratic Combination (CQC) method used for modal combination.
1.3 Structural modeling
Earthquake response analysis is an art to mimic the behavior of structure subjected to

an earthquake ground motion grounded on dynamic model of the structure. The correct
analysis will depend upon the proper modeling of the behavior of materials, elements
and structure. It is imperative to choice an appropriate and simple model to cup tie the
purpose of analysis.
A lumped mass model is simple and most used for practical design of multistory
building. It reduces the substantial amount of calculation. A two plane frame model is
been used for building having symmetrical plan and torsional response are expected to
be small. The model connects all the plane frames in one principal direction by
presumptuous the identical horizontal displacement of floor.
1.4 Structural method of analysis
Once the structural model has been selected, it is possible to perform analysis to
determine the seismically induced forces in the structures. There are different types of
analysis which provide different degree of accuracy.
The analysis procedure can be categorized on the basis of three factors:
 The types of externally applied loads,

 The behavior of structural materials,
 The types of structural model selected.

Introduction
Analysis
Process
External Behaviour Types Of

Of Structural
Action Materials Model
Static Elastic 3D, 2D,

Analysis Analysis 1D
Elastic
Dynamic
Plastic
Analysis
Analysis
Based on the type of external action and behavior of structure, the analysis can be further
classified as linear static analysis, linear dynamic analysis, Non-linear static analysis
and Non-linear dynamic analysis.
For regular structure with limited height, linear static analysis or equivalent static
analysis methods can only be used. Linear dynamic analysis can be performed in two
ways either by mode superposition method or response spectrum method and elastic
time history method. This analysis will produce the effect of higher modes of vibration
and actual distribution of forces in elastic range in better way. They represent an
enhancement over linear static analysis.
The significant difference between linear static and dynamic analysis is the level of
force and their distribution along the height of the structure. Nonlinear static analysis is
an enhancement over the linear static or dynamic analysis in the sense that it allows the
inelastic behavior of structure. The method also assumes the set of static incremental
load over the height of the structure.
The method is moderately simple to be implemented and provides information on the

strength, deformation, and ductility of the structure and the distribution of demands.
A nonlinear dynamic analysis or inelastic time history analysis is the only method to
describe the genuine behavior of the structure during an earthquake.

Introduction
1.4.1 Code based procedure for seismic analysis
Main features of seismic method of analysis based on Indian standard are 1893:2002
are described as follows.
Equivalent lateral force
Seismic analysis of most of the structures is still perform on the basis of lateral force
assumed to be equivalent to the actual loading. The base shear which is the total
horizontal force on the structure is calculated on the basis of structure mass and
fundamental period of Vibration and analogous mode shape. According to code
formula, the base shear is distributed along the height of the structure in terms of lateral
forces. This method is usually conservative for low to medium height buildings with an
unvarying configuration.
Response Spectrum Analysis
A structures where modes other than fundamental one affect significantly the response
of the structure this method is applicable. Herein, the response of multi degree of
freedom system is expressed as the superposition of model response, each model
response being determined from the spectral analysis of single degree of freedom
system, which are then combined to compute the total response.
Elastic time history analysis
A linear time history analysis overcomes all the disadvantages of modal response
Spectrum Analysis, provide non-linear behavior is not involved. This method requires
greater computational effort for calculating the response at discrete times.

Introduction
1.5 An overview of composite construction
Earlier, for the design of a building, the choice was normally between a concrete
structure and a masonry structure. But the failure of many multi-storied and low-rise
R.C.C. and masonry buildings due to earthquake has forced the structural engineers to
look for the alternative method of construction. Use of composite or hybrid material is
of precise interest, due to its significant potential in improving the overall performance
through rather modest changes in manufacturing and constructional technologies. In
India, many consulting engineers are reluctant to accept the use of composite steel-
concrete structure because of its unfamiliarity and complexity in its analysis and design.
If one having configured properly, then composite steel-concrete system can provide
extremely economical structural systems with high durability, rapid erection and
superior seismic performance characteristics. In composite construction the two
different materials are tied together by the use of shear studs at their interface having
lesser depth which saves the material cost considerably. Thermal expansion (coefficient
of thermal expansion) of both, concrete and steel being nearly the same. Therefore, there
is no induction of different thermal stresses in the section under variation of
temperature. Steel-concrete-composite buildings are formed by connecting the steel
beams with concrete slab or profiled deck slab with the help of mechanical shear
connectors so that slab and beam act as a single unit. It is being great immerse to
understanding composite behaviour of material and their response.
1.6 Objective of the study
The present study is aims to evaluate the seismic response of the multistory building
made up of different material, i.e. concrete, steel, and composite material, so that one
can choose best alternative which has good seismic performance as well as economy.
To understand the response of the building under earthquake, dynamic response

spectrum method is used, and the response of the structure in terms of time period,
frequency, deflections, story shear, story displacement, story drift, modal participation
factor and peck ground acceleration is compared for all types of models. To estimate
the cost in terms of material for all three types of building.

2. Seismic analysis methods and concept
2.1General
Reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings are the most mutual type of constructions in
urban India, which are subjected to several types of forces during their lifetime, such as
static forces due to dead and live loads and dynamic forces due to wind and earthquakes.
Unlike static forces, amplitude, direction and location of dynamic forces, especially due
to earthquakes, fluctuate significantly with time, causing substantial inertia effects on
buildings. Behaviour of buildings under dynamic forces depends upon the dynamic
characteristics of buildings which are controlled by both their mass and stiffness
properties, whereas the static behaviour is solely dependent upon the stiffness
appearances.
Performance of building fundamentally depends on the strength and deformability of

constituent members, which is further associated to the internal design forces for the
members. The internal design forces in turn depend upon the precision of the method
employed in their analytical fortitude. Analysing and designing buildings for static
forces is a routine affair these days because of availability of affordable computers and
specialized programs which can be used for the analysis.
Contrariwise, dynamic analysis is an onerous process and requires additional input

related to mass of structure, and an understanding of structural dynamics for
interpretation of analytical results.
The main desire of linear dynamic analysis is to evaluate the time variation of stresses
and deformations in structures caused by arbitrary dynamic loads. As in any dynamic
system, vibration properties of buildings can be estimated by solving Eigen value
problem given by
𝟐𝛑
[ k – 𝛚𝟐𝐧 m ]∅𝐧 = 0 where 𝐰𝐧 =
𝐓𝐧
Where k and m are the stiffness and mass matrices of buildings respectively and 𝜔𝑛 ,
∅𝑛 and 𝑇𝑛 are the natural frequency, mode shape and natural period of building

Seismic Analysis Method and Concept
Respectively, for the 𝑛𝑡ℎ mode. Given k and m, the Eigen value problem is to find
positive wns and corresponding fns.
Buildings can vibrate in different mode shapes there can be as many shapes possible as
number of dynamic degree of freedom in the building. Dynamic degrees of freedom in
a structure are the number of independent coordinates in which the structure can
undergo motion under dynamic forces. Depending upon the building type, only the first
few mode shapes may govern the response of the building. Lateral displacement, u at
any point on building during earthquakes can be expressed as a linear combination of
all the mode shapes of building as given below
u = ∑𝐍𝐧=𝟏 ∅𝐧 𝐪𝐧
Where 𝑞𝑛 are the nth modal coordinates and N is the total number of modes.
Shear forces on buildings can be estimated as stiffness times the lateral displacement
therefore mode shapes of buildings play an important role in estimating the design base
shear for buildings Along each principal axis, contribution of first mode is higher modes
reduces depending upon the natural characteristics of buildings.
Regular buildings have simple geometry without any abrupt change in dimension, and
uniform and symmetric distribution of mass and stiffness along height as well as in plan.
Depending upon its influence, each imposes some force demand on buildings, and
adding the forces imposed by all the modes gives the total force on the building for
which it is needed to be designed.
In some short buildings, the first vibration mode may be the only governing mode with
more than 90-95% participation factor. With cumulative number of floors. Flexibility
of building increases bringing higher mode effects into the picture.
for taller buildings even if they are regular, the first mode may not be the only governing
mode; participation from higher modes may also be Significant In reality, several types
of irregularities are introduced into buildings because of unsymmetrical and non-
uniform distribution of mass and stiffness, which are often responsible for the
predominance of higher modes in the seismic force demand on buildings. Thus, the
effects of higher modes are important in analysis, design and ultimately in the
performance of buildings.

2.2 Analysis methods
As per Indian standard code for earthquake IS: 1893-2002, seismic analysis can be
performed by three methods.
1) Static method
a. Equivalent static coefficient method
2) Dynamic method
a. Time history method
b. Response spectrum method
2.2.1 Equivalent static coefficient method
The Equivalent static coefficient method is a simplified method as compared to any

other dynamic analysis methods.
The Equivalent static coefficient method may be applied to single point of attachment
cantilever models with essentially uniform mass distribution.
The equivalent static load shall be determined by multiplying the structure, equipment
or component masses by acceleration equal to 1.5 times the peck acceleration of the
applicable response spectrum. Smaller value may be used if justified, or the floor ZPA
value may be used if it is shown that fundamental frequency is so high, typically 33 Hz.
No dynamic amplification will occur at this frequency.
To obtain an equivalent static load for a structure, equipment, or component, which can
be signified by a simple model, a factor of 1.5 is to be the peck acceleration of the
applicable floor response spectrum. A factor less than 1.5 can be used if adequate
justification is provided.
The significance of utilizing factor 1.5 attributed to account for higher modes and add
conservation in the equivalent static method.
𝑭𝒉 = K 𝑺𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒙 W
𝑭𝒗 = K 𝑺𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒙 W
Where,
Fh = equivalent static inertia force applied to the component in horizontal direction
Fv = equivalent static inertia force applied to the component in vertical direction

K = load coefficient applied to the model. (k = 1.5)
Samax = peak acceleration of applicable amplified or floor response spectra in the ith
direction
W = the total dead load (weight) which exist during the postulated seismic event. this
includes piping weight, water weight and insulation. The units of the term W must be
consistent with the terms Fh and Fv above.
A 3 DOF system has been shown in fig. Which describes how force are applied in static
manner
Figure 2.1 Static application of load
Earthquake is most important phenomenon considered for the design of any structure
on the earth. Since Earthquakes are occurring frequently its effects on the structure must
be consider to ensure the safety of the structure.
The design horizontal seismic coefficient 𝐴ℎ for a structure shall be determined by the
following expression:
𝐙 𝐈 𝐒𝐚
𝑨𝒉 =
𝟐𝐑𝐠
Where,
Z = zone factor for the maximum considerable earthquake (MCE) and service life of
the structure in a zone. Factor 2 in denominator is to reduce the MCE to design basis
earthquake (DBE).

I = importance factor , depending on the functional purpose of the building,

characterized by hazardous consequences of its failure , post-earthquake functional
needs, historical value , or economic importance.
R = response reduction factor, depending upon the perceived seismic damage

performance of the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations however
the ratio I/R shall not be greater than 1.
Sa /g = average response acceleration coefficient (Figure).
Table 2.1 zone factor (Z)
Seismic zone II III IV V
Seismic low moderate severe Very severe

intensity
Z 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36
Table 2.2 importance factor (I)
Sr no. structure Importance

factor
1 Important building such as hospitals, schools, 1.5
monumental structures, emergency buildings like
telephone exchange, television stations, radio station,
railway station, fire stations, large community halls
like cinemas, assembly halls and subway station,
power station
2 All other building 1
The fundamental natural time period as mentioned in clause 7.6 IS 1893 (part 1):
2002 for moment resisting RC frame building without brick infill walls and moment
resisting steel frame building without brick infill walls, respectively is given by
Ta = 0.075h0.75 ............ for RC frame building
Ta = 0.085h0.75 ............ for steel frame building

Where,
h = height of the building in ‘m’ excluding basement storey,
if it is connected with the ground floor decks or fitted in between the building column.
If there is brick filling, then the fundamental natural period of vibration, may be taken
as:
𝟎.𝟎𝟗 𝐡
𝐓𝐚 =
√𝐝
Where,
h = height of the building in m, as defined above, and
d = base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in meter, along the considered
direction of the lateral force.
Figure 2.2 Response spectra for rock and soil sites for 5 % damping
Table 2.3 Multiplying factors for obtaining values for other damping
Damping
percent 0 2 5 7 10 15 20 25 30
factor 3.2 1.4 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.55 0.5

Seismic weight
Seismic weight of floors: the seismic weight of each floor is its full dead load plus
appropriate amount of imposed load. While computing the seismic weight of each floor,
the weight of columns and walls in any storey shall be equally distributed to the floors
above and below the storey.
Seismic weight of structure: the seismic weight of whole structure is the sum of the
seismic weights of all the floors. Any weight supported in between storey’s shall be
distributed to the floors above and below in inverse proportion to its distance from the
floors.
Design seismic base shear
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (𝑣𝑏 ) along any principal
direction shall be determined by the following expression:
Vb = Ah W
Where,
Ah = design horizontal acceleration spectrum and
w = seismic weight of the building
Distribution of design force
Vertical distribution of the base shear to different floor level shall be distributed along
the height of the structure as per the following expression:
𝑾𝒊 𝒉𝟐𝒊
Qi = Vb ∑𝒏 𝟐
𝒋=𝟏 𝑾𝒊 𝒉𝒊
Where,
Qi = design lateral force at floor i,
Wi = seismic weight of floor i,
hi = height of floor i measured from base, and
n = number of storeys in the building is the number of levels at which the masses are
located.

2.2.2 Dynamic analysis
Dynamic analysis shall be performed to obtain the design seismic force, and it’s
distribute on to different levels along the height of the building and to the various lateral
load resisting elements, for the following buildings:
Regular buildings: those greater than 40 m in height in zones IV and V and those
greater than 90 m in height in zones II and III. Modeling as per 7.8.4.5 can be used.
Irregular buildings: all framed buildings higher than 12 m in zones IV and those
greater than 40 m in height in zones II and III.
The analytical model for dynamic analysis of buildings with unusual configuration
should be such that it adequately models the types of irregularities present in the
building configuration.
Dynamic analysis may be performed either by the time history method or by the
response spectrum method. However, in either method, the design base shear (Vb) shall
be compared with base shear (Vba) calculated using a fundamental period Ta. When Vb
is less than Vba all the response quantities (for example member forces, displacement,
story forces, story shears and base reactions) shall be multiplied by
𝑉
(𝑣𝑏 )
𝑏𝑎
The number of modes considered in the modal superposition method
Number of modes included in the analysis shall be sufficient to ensure that inclusion of
all remaining modes does not result in more than 10% increase in total responses of
interest. Alternatively, ASCE standard (4-98) permits to include all the modes in the
analysis having frequencies less than the ZPA frequency provided that the residual rigid
response due to the missing mass is included.
The following criteria to be adopted while choosing the minimum number of modes to
be considered.
1. Number of modes extracted are such that highest mode corresponding to a

frequency greater than or equal to 33 Hz.
2. Numbers of modes extracted are such that the cumulative modal mass is more
than 90% in each of the three directions.

Any one of the two methods can be used to determine the no. of modes to be
considered in modal superposition analysis.
Combination of modal response
A) SRSS method
B) CQC method
C) ABS method
(A) SRSS method (square root of the sum of the squares with no closely spaced
modes)
In a response spectrum modal dynamic analysis if the modes are not closely spaced (two
consecutive modes are defined as closely spaced if their frequency differ from each
other by 10% or less of the lower frequency) the evocative maximum value of particular
response of interest for design should be obtained by talking the square root of the sum
of the squares (SRSS).
Mathematically this can be expressed as follows.
𝝀 = √∑𝒓𝒌=𝟏 𝝀𝟐𝒌
Where,
λ = max. Value of particular response of a given element to a given component of an

earthquake
𝜆𝑘 = the peck value of the response of the element due to the kth mode
r = the number of significant modes considered in the modal response combination.
(B) CQC method (complete quadratic combination method with closely spaced
modes)
This method does not take in to account the duration of the earthquake. The CQC
method takes into account the statistical coupling between closely spaced modes caused
by modal damping. Increasing the modal damping increases the coupling between
closely spaced modes. If the damping is zero for all modes, this method degenerates to
the SRSS method.

Mathematically this can be expressed as follows:
λ = √∑𝐫𝐢=𝟏 ∑𝐫𝐣=𝟏 𝛌𝐢 𝛒𝐢𝐣 𝛌𝐣
Where,
𝜆𝑖 = Response Quantity in Mode i
𝜆𝑗 = Response Quantity in Mode j
r = number of modes being considered
𝜌𝑖𝑗 = cross model coefficient
(C) Maximum absolute response (ABS)
The maximum absolute response for any system response quantity is obtained by
assuming that the maximum response in each mode occurs at the same instant of time.
Thus the maximum value of the response quantity is the sum of the maximum absolute
value of the response associated with each mode. Therefore using ABS, maximum
storey shear for all mode shall be obtained as
𝐫
𝛌𝐧 = ∑ 𝛌𝐜′
𝐜
Where the summation is for the closely spaced modes only. The peck response quantity
due to closely spaced modes is then combined with those of the remaining well-
separated modes by the method of SRSS.
Missing mass correction:
In response spectrum analysis method we do the analysis for finite number of modes
with cut-off frequency as 33 Hz. In effect, the truncation of the mode series means that
some mass of the system is discounted and is called as missing mass. Forces associated
with these inertial masses are substantial for system where mass is evaluated and forces
are calculated by static method based on the following equations.

Combination of response due to missing mass with dynamic response
Residual response due to missing mass is combined with response due to dynamic
analysis. The above response will be considered as an additional mode having frequency
equal to the ZPA or cut-off frequency and will be combined using the SRSS rule.
Spatial combination
Spatial combination of response due to three components of earthquake is carried out

by the SRSS method.
R = (𝑅𝑋2 + 𝑅𝑌2 + 𝑅𝑍2 )1/2
As per IS 1893 Spatial combination due to three components of earthquake is carried

out by 100:30:30 method.
Maximum response due to earthquake will be highest of three.
R = ± R X ± 0.3 R Y ± 0.3 R Z
R = ± R Y ± 0.3 R Z ± 0.3 R X
R = ± R Z ± 0.3 R X ± 0.3 R Y
2.3 The time-history method
The time-history analysis of a structure subjected to dynamic seismic load may be

performed by linear or nonlinear methods. Dynamic analysis of both linear and
nonlinear system is base on solution of simultaneous differential equations subjected to
a set of initial conditions and forces.
The response of multi degree of freedom linear system subjected to seismic excitation
is represented by the following differential equations of motion
[M]{Ẍ} + [C]{Ẍ} +[K]{X} = -[M]{1}ü𝑔
In the model superposition method the equations of the motion can be decoupled
using transformation
{X} = [∅]{Y}
[∅] = normalized mode shape matrix
{Y} = vector of normal or generalized coordinates

The decoupled equations for each mode may be written as
[M][Φ]{𝑌̈} + [C][Φ]{𝑌̈} + [K][Φ]{𝑌̈} = -[M]{1}𝑢̈ 𝑔
𝑇
Pre multiplying by the [Φ] above equation become
[Φ] 𝑇 [M][Φ]{𝑌̈} + [Φ] 𝑇

[C][Φ]{𝑌̈} + [Φ] 𝑇
[K][Φ]{𝑌̈} = -[Φ] 𝑇
[M]{1}𝑢̈ 𝑔
Using orthogonal condition of the matrix, above equation can be written as
𝑌𝐽̈ + 2𝜉𝑗 𝜔𝑗 𝑌𝑗 + 𝜔𝑗2 𝑌𝑗 = 𝛤𝑗 𝑈̈𝑔
𝑌𝐽 = circular frequency of jth mode of the system (rad/sec)
𝑊𝑗 = modal participation factor for the jth mode j Γ.
𝑇
𝛤𝑗 = - [M] [Φ]
The total response can be obtained by the response of all the modes up to rigid
frequency by using newmarks-𝛽 and Wilson-𝜃 methods. The rigid frequency in
dynamic analysis is considered to be 33 Hz.
2.4 The response spectrum method
In this method acceleration or displacement spectrum is used as a seismic input. Firstly

frequency analysis is carried out to find out the mode shapes and modal frequencies
then input spectrum is used for finding the response quantities. In response spectrum
method spectral parameters are directly used for evaluation of the response as per the
procedure given below.
These model responses are combined by modal combination method to get the
maximum response for one direction of excitation of earthquake. To account for the
maximum response due to three components of earthquake spatial combination method
is used.
The steps for the response spectrum analysis are as below.
Step 1: undamped free vibration analysis of the entire building shall be performed as
per established methods of mechanics using the appropriate masses and elastic stiffness
of the structural system, to obtain natural periods (T) and mode shapes {Φ} of those of
its modes of vibration that need to be considered.

Step 2: the number of modes to be used in the analysis should be such that the sum total
of modal masses of all modes considered is at least 90 % of the total seismic mass and
missing mass correction beyond 33 %. If modes with natural frequency beyond 33 Hz
are to be considered, modal combination shall be carried out only for modes up to 33
Hz. The influence of higher modes shall be included by considering missing mass
correction following well established procedures.
Step 3: modal combination
The peak response quantities (for example – member forces, displacement, story forces,
story shears and base reactions) shall be combined as per complete quadratic
combination method.
λ = √∑𝐫𝐢=𝟏 ∑𝐫𝐣=𝟏 𝛌𝐢 𝛒𝐢𝐣 𝛌𝐣
Where,
𝜆𝑖 = Response Quantity in Mode i
𝜆𝑗 = Response Quantity in Mode j
r = number of modes being considered
𝜌𝑖𝑗 = cross model coefficient
8ζ2 (1 + β)β1.5
ρij =
(1 + β2 )2 + 4ζ2 β(1 + β)2
ζ = model damping ratio
β = frequency ratio
Alternatively, the peak response quantities may be combined by SRSS or ABS method.
Step 4 : modal mass
Modal mass 𝑀𝑘 of the kth mode is given by
[∑𝐧𝐢=𝟏 𝐖𝐢 𝚽𝐢𝐤 ]𝟐
𝐌𝐤 =
𝐠 ∑𝐧𝐢=𝟏 𝐖𝐢 (𝚽𝐣𝐤 )𝟐
Where,
g = acceleration due to gravity,

Φik = mode shape coefficient at floor i in mode k and
𝑊𝑖 = seismic weight of floor i
Step 5: modal participation factors (𝑷𝒌 )
Pk Of mode k is given by,
∑𝐧
𝐢=𝟏 𝐖𝐢 𝚽𝐢𝐤
𝐏𝐤 =
∑𝐧
𝐢=𝟏 𝐖𝐢 (𝚽𝐣𝐤 )
𝟐
Step 6: design lateral force at each floor in each mode is given by
𝐐𝐢𝐤 = 𝐀𝐤 𝚽𝐢𝐤 𝐏𝐤 𝐖𝐢
Where,
𝐴𝑘 = design horizontal acceleration spectrum value using the natural period of vibration
Tk .
Step 7: story shear force in each mode
The peak shear force acting in story I in mode k

𝐧
𝑽𝒌 = ∑ 𝐐𝐢𝐤
𝐣=𝐢+𝟏
Step 8: story shear forces due to all modes considered
The peak story shear force ( Vi ) in story i due to all modes considered is obtained by
combining thoes

3. Aspect of composite structure
3.1 General
In India RCC is mostly adopted for construction of building or other type of structure.
The other options those are available is steel and Composite structure. But because of
lake of the guidance and technique they are not prevalent in India. RCC structures are
quite heavy and therefore foundation sizes and cost is more. Also it requires good
quality control at the site for good construction.
Steel is widely used in framing, flooring, walling and roofing in residential/commercial

Building of single/multi-Storey construction. Steel has long been the building material
of Choice for commercial construction in view of the high strength to weight ratio,
ductility and stability. Recyclability and recycled content are another factor that has
moved to the forefront of benefits. Greater Clear spans and fewer internal load bearing
walls & columns are possible in steel buildings. Steel is 100 % recyclable and can be
recycled again and again with no loss in quality, which greatly reduces the amount of
energy to produce steel from virgin materials. Also steel framed buildings have the
potential to be easily strengthened, adjusted, extended, unbolted and reassembled,
modified. Repaired and reused. Steel structures can be pre-fabricated in controlled
environment to help eliminate site waste. Also the Steel construction is fart compared
to conventional RCC construction and thus offers early occupation of the premises with
reduced burden of entering construction.
Steel structures have been able to withstand severe earthquake without collapse, owing
to their intrinsic ductility and also due to high strength to weight ratio. A major
consideration in the seismic performance of steel structure is stability limit state. As
most of steel structural member are made up of plate like element stability of each such
element is necessary to get hysteretic performance. Most of failure in the steel structure
is in form of local buckling. In addition to this fracture of welds due to stress
concentration.
The main aim of earthquake resistant design of steel structure is to get stable post yield
behavior of the structure.

Aspects of composite structures
3.2 Composite Structures
Composite construction in steel and concrete combines the improved properties of both
concrete and steel and the same time satisfies the requirement of cost effective and
speedy construction. This system of construction has been very successfully applied in
North America, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Gulf States and in many other
countries.
Key features of this system are the use of steel frames with steel decking both as
permanent formwork and reinforcement to an in-situ concrete slab and to weld shear
connectors through the decking on site.
Composite construction practice is still in a very nascent stage in India and so its
effectiveness and applicability must be tested in Indian context. When we look at the
scenario of composite construction in India, efforts are underway for making beams in
composite construction as evidenced by Bureau of Indian Standards introducing a
separate code. IS: 11384-1985. There are organizations, which have taken interest in
producing metal decking sheets suitable for composite construction. Government on
their Part has gone ahead approving a few. Bridges in Kolkata & Delhi making use of
this methodology of composite system fully is it in building industry, or in infrastructure
projects.
3.2.1 Compensations of steel-concrete composite construction
Most effective utilization of material viz. Concrete in compression and steel in tension.
 High ductility of steel material leads to better seismic resistance of the

composite section.
 Steel component can be deformed in a ductile manner without premature failure
and can withstand numerous loading cycles before failure.
 Steel component has the ability to absorb the energy released due to seismic
forces.
 Ability to cover large column free area. This leads to more usable space. Area
occupied by the composite column is less than the area occupied by the RCC
column.

 Faster construction by utilizing rolled and/or pre-fabricated components. Also,

speedy construction facilitates quicker return on the invested capital.
 Quality of steel is assured since it is produced under controlled environment in
the factory. Larger use of steel in composite construction compared to that in
RCC ensures better quality control for the major part of the structure.
 Cost effectiveness found on life cycle cost analysis because steel structure can
be maintained easily and less frequent repairment is required for steel structure.
 Steel is more durable, highly recyclable and hence environment friendly.
 Keeping span / loading unaltered, smaller structural steel sections are required
compared to non-composite construction. Therefore reduction in overall weight
of the composite structure compared to the RCC construction result less
foundation cost.
 Formwork cost is lower compared to RCC construction.
 Handling and transportation cost is minimized because major part of the
structure is fabricated in workshop.
 The steel and steel concrete composite construction is highly resistant against
terrorist activities as compared to RCC construction.
 Composite sections have higher stiffness and hence experience less deflection
than the non-composite steel sections.
 Reduction in overall weight of structure compared to RCC construction is
possible and thereby reducing the foundation cost.
 Steel beam continuous through joint avoids welding at location of maximum
forces.
3.2.2 Drawbacks of steel-concrete composite construction
 Less fire resistance.

 Lack of design standards, guidelines, etc.
 Site layout to cater for very congested site environment.

3.3 Components of composite structure
3.3.1 Shear connectors
Shear connectors are essential for steel concrete composite construction as they
integrate the compression capacity of supported concrete slab with supporting steel
beams / girders to improve the load carrying capacity as well as overall rigidity. Though
steel to concrete bond may help shear transfer between the two to certain extent, yet it
is neglected as per the code because of its uncertainty. All codes therefore, specify
positive connectors at the interface of steel and concrete.
The top fiber of the bottom beam undergoes slip relative to the bottom fibre of the top
beam. The slip strain is maximum at mid span and slip and slip is zero while at supports
slip strain is zero while slip is maximum.
Figure 3.3.1 Slip and slip strain
By providing full shear connection between slab and beam the strength and stiffness of
system can be considerably enlarged.
Uplift
If the loading is applied at lower edge of beam, Vertical separation between the
members occurs. The torsional stiffness of reinforced concrete slab forming flanges of
the composite beam with and triaxial state of stress in vicinity of shear connector also
tend to cause uplift at the interface.
As shown in fig. If the flexural rigidity of AB is larger even by 10% than that of CD,
the whole load on AB is transferred to CD at A and B with a separation of the beams
between these two points. if AB Was connected to CD, there will be Uplift forces at

mid span. This shows that shear connectors are to be designed to give resistance to slip
as well as uplift.
Figure 3.3.2 Uplift behaviour
Types of Shear Connectors
The total shear force at the interface between a concrete slab and steel beam is
approximately eight times the total load carried by the beam. Therefore, mechanical
shear connectors are required at the steel-concrete interface. These connectors are
designed to (a) transmit longitudinal shear along the interface, and (b) prevent
separation of steel beam and concrete slab at the interface.
Thus, mechanical shear connectors are provided to transmit the horizontal shear
between the steel beam and the concrete slab, ignoring the effect of any bond between
the two. It also resists uplift force acting at the steel concrete interface. Commonly used
types of shear connectors as per IS: 11384 - 1985: Code of practice for composite
construction in structural steel and concrete, are illustrated in Fig.
There are three main types of shear connectors; rigid shear connectors, flexible shear
connectors and anchorage shear connectors these are explained below:
Rigid shear connectors
As the name indicates, these connectors are very stiff and they sustain only a small
deformation while resisting the shear force. They derive their resistance from bearing,
pressure on the concrete, and fail due to crushing of concrete. Short bars, angles, T-
sections are common examples of this type of connectors. Also anchorage devices like
hooped bars are attached with these connectors to prevent vertical separation. This type
of connectors is shown in Fig 3.3.3

Flexible Shear Connectors
Flexible shear connectors consist of headed studs, channels or tees welded to the top
flange of the steel beams come under this category. They derive their stress resistance
through bending and undergo large deformation before failure. Typical flexible
connectors are shown in Fig 3.3.3. The stud connectors are the types used extensively.
The shank and the weld collar adjacent to steel beam resist the shear loads whereas the
head resists the uplift.
Figure 3.3.3 Typical shear connectors as per IS: 11384

Anchorage Shear Connectors
Anchorage type Shear Connectors is used to resist longitudinal shear and prevent
separation of the beam / girder from the concrete slab at the interface through bond. In
this case, mild steel inclined rods or steel rods in the form of helical stirrups are welded
on the top flange of the steel beam.
Deformation of connectors
Deformation of connectors can be explained by a typical load/slip relationship of rigid

as well as flexible shear connectors. The deformation capacities required for rigid and
flexible connectors are different and it is important to distinguish between two
requirements.
It is also important to distinguish between strength and corresponding deformation

capacity the shear strength of connectors is established by the push-out test, a standard
test using a solid slab. A typical load-slip curve for a welded stud is shown in fig 3.4.
Assuming a standard loading curve, the strength plateau is reached at a slip of 2 to 3
mm.
Figure 3.4 Typical load slip curve
If the shear connection provided is complete, failure will depend on the bending strength
at the maximum moment zone of a simply supported beam or in case of a continuous
beam at the support locations. But, if the number of connectors provided at the steel-
concrete interface is not sufficient to enable the beam to achieve its full bending

strength, failure will depend on the shape of load/slip diagram of the connectors and the
span of the beam and the method of construction.
Load bearing mechanism of shear connectors
Figure 3.5 Load bearing mechanism of shear connectors
In the course of resisting the shear load, the connectors deform and transfer the load to
concrete through bearing. The dispersion of load can cause tensile cracks in concrete by
ripping, shear and splitting action.
Design strength of connectors
The Design strength of some commonly used shear connectors as per IS: 11384-1985
is given in table 3.1. As per the clause 9.6 of IS: 11384-1985 the spacing of connectors
should not be greater than 600 mm. The distance between the edge of the connector and
the edge of the plate or flange to which it is connected shall not be less than 25 mm.

Table 3.1 Design strength of shear connectors for different concrete strength
3.3.2 Composite beam
Composite Action in Beams
The connection in the composite beam is considered to be complete if the bending

resistance, not the horizontal shear resistance decides the resistance of the composite
beam. Complete or incomplete interaction between the concrete slab and the steel
section results in a more-stiff or less-stiff composite beam. Incomplete interaction arises
when flexible connectors are used and slip (relative displacement) occurs at the steel
concrete interface.
Composite seams are often designed under the assumption that the un-propped steel
beam supports the weight of the structural steel and wet concrete plus construction
loads. It may, therefore, be decided for reasons of economy to provide only sufficient
connectors to develop enough composite action to support the loads applied afterwards.

This approach results in considerably less number of connectors than are required to
enable the maximum bending resistance of the composite beam to be reached. However,
the use of such partial shear connection results in reduced resistance and stiffness.
Degree of interaction
When no slip occurs between the Concrete slab and the supporting steel beam, it is
termed as full interaction. In other words, when the bending strength of a beam does not
increase with the addition of further Connectors at the steel-concrete interface, it is
considered that the complete shear connection has been achieved.
In practice some slip will always occur and the term full interaction is used where it is
considered that the effects of slip between the concrete flange and steel beam may be
neglected in the design.
Partial interaction implies that slip occurs at the interface between the concrete flange
and the steel beam, and hence it causes a discontinuity of strain that has to be taken into
account in the analysis.
In partial shear connection the number of connectors provided is less than that required
to achieve complete shear connection
Partial shear connection should not be considered as unsatisfactory for the purpose for
which they are provided. Though not permissible as per Indian Standard, partial shear
connection is of interest where the bending strength of the particular beam need not be
fully utilized.
Basic design considerations
The analysis of composite section is made using Limit state of collapse method. IS:
11384- 1985 code deals with the design and construction of only simply supported
composite beams. Therefore, the method of design suggested in EC 4 is also referred
along with IS: 11384.
Section Classification
The ultimate strength of composite section is determined from its plastic capacity,
provided the elements of the steel cross section do not fall in the semi-compact or
slender category. The serviceability is checked using elastic analysis, as the structure
will remain elastic under Service loading. Full shear connection ensures that full

moment capacity of the section develops. In partial shear connection, although full
moment capacity of the beam cannot be achieved, the design will have to be adequate
to [resist the applied loading. This design is sometimes preferred due to economy
achieved through the reduced number of shear connectors to be welded at site.
Sections are classified depending on their moment-rotation characteristics. Local

buckling of elements of a steel section reduces its capacity. Because of local buckling,
the ability of an I flange or web to resist compression depends on its slenderness,
represented by its thickness ratio. The effect of local buckling is therefore taken care of
in design, by limiting the slenderness ratio of the elements i.e. web and compression
𝐛
flange. The codes also the limiting width-thickness ratio 𝛃 = for [component plates,
𝐭
which enables the classification to be made. The moment capacity of section shown in
fig.
Figure 3.6 Moment capacities of section
Plastic cross-sections: Plastic cross-sections are those which can develop their full-
plastic moment Mp and allow sufficient rotation at or above this moment so that
redistribution of bending moments can take place in the structure until complete failure
mechanism is formed (b/t < β1).
Compact cross-sections: Compact cross-sections are those which can develop their full-
plastic moment M but where the local buckling prevents the required rotation at this
moment to take place (β1< b/t < β2).

Semi-compact cross-section: Semi-compact cross-sections are those in which the stress

in the extreme fibers should be limited to yield stress because local buckling would
prevent the development of the full-plastic moment Mp. Such sections can develop only
yield moment My (β2< b/t < β3)
Slender cross-sections: Slender cross-sections are those in which yield stress in the
extreme fibers cannot be attained because of premature local buckling in the elastic
range ( β3 < b/t).
Span to depth ratio
Span to depth ratio limitations for which the serviceability criteria will be deemed to be
satisfied according to EC4 given in table
Table 3.2 Span to depth ratio according to EC4
Beam type Span/ depth ratio
Simply supported 15-18 ( primary beams )
18-20 ( secondary beam )
continuous 18-22 ( primary beams )
22-25 ( end beams )
Effective breadth of flange
A composite beam acts as a T-beam with the concrete slab as its flange. The bending
stress in the concrete flange is found to vary along the breadth of the flange as in Fig
3.6, due to the shear lag effect. This phenomenon is taken into account by replacing the
actual breadth of flange (B) with an effective breadth (beff), such that the area FGHIJ
nearly equals the area ACDE. Research based on elastic theory has shown that the ratio
of the effective breadth of slab to actual breadth (beff /B) is a function of the type of
loading, support condition, and the section under consideration. For design purpose a
portion of the beam span (20% - 33%) is taken as the effective breadth of the slab.

Figure 3.7 Use of effective width to allow for shear lag
In EC4, the effective breadth of simply supported beam is taken as lo/8 on each side of
the steel web, but not greater than half the distance to the next adjacent web. For simply
supported beam lo = l Therefore,
l
beff = But ≤ B
4
Where,
lo = The effective span taken as the distance between points of zero moments.
l = Actual span
B = Centre to centre distance of transverse spans for slab.
Modular ratio
Modular ratio is the ratio of elastic modulus of steel (Es) to the time dependent secant
modulus of concrete (Ecm.). While evaluating stress due to long term loading (dead
load etc.) the time dependent secant modulus of concrete should be used. This takes into
account the long-term effects of creep under sustained loading. The values of elastic
modulus of concrete under short term loading for different grades of concrete are given
in Table 2.
IS: 11384 -1985 has suggested a modular ratio of 15 for live load and 30 for dead load,
for elastic analysis of section. It is to be noted that a higher value of modular ratio for

dead load takes into account the larger creep strain of concrete for sustained loading. In
EC 4 the elastic modulus of concrete for long-term loads is taken as one-third of the
short-term value and for normal weight concrete, the modular ratio is taken as 6.5 for
short term loading and 20 for long term loading.
Partial Safety Factor
Partial safety factor for loads and materials – The suggested partial safety factors for
load, γf and for materials, γm are shown in Table 3.3 as per the proposed revision to IS:
800 & IS: 456- 2000.
Table 3.3 Partial safety factors as per the IS: 800 & IS: 456- 2000.
load As per the proposed As per the proposed

revisions to IS: 800 revisions to IS: 456- 2000
Partial safety factor, γf
1.35 1.50
Dead load
Live load 1.50 1.50
Partial safety factor, γm
concrete 1.50 1.50
structural 1.15 1.15
reinforcement 1.15 1.15
3.3.3 Composite floor
Advantages of composite floors
Composite floors using profiled sheet decking have become very popular in the West
for high-rise buildings. Composite deck slabs are generally competitive where the
concrete floor has to be completed quickly and where medium level of fire protection
to steel work is sufficient. A typical composite floor system using profiled sheets is
shown in Fig. 3.8 There is presently no Indian standard covering the design of
composite floor system using profiled sheeting.

Figure 3.8 Profile decking
In composite floors, the structural behaviour is analogous to a reinforced concrete slab,

with the steel sheeting acting as the tension reinforcement. The main structural and other
benefits of using composite floors with profiled steel decking art:
 Savings in steel weight are typically 30 % to 50% over non-composite construction.

 Greater stiffness of composite beams results in shallower depths for the same span.
Hence lower storey heights are adequate resulting in savings in cladding costs,
reduction in wind loading and savings in foundation costs
 Rate of construction is rapid.
 It supports loads during construction and acts as a working platform.
 It develops adequate composite action with concrete to resist the imposed loading.
 It transfers in-plane loading by diaphragm action to vertical bracing or shear walls.
 It stabilizes the compression flanges of the beams against lateral buckling, until
concrete hardens.
 It decreases the volume of concrete in tension zone.
 It distributes shrinkage strains, thus preventing serious cracking of concrete.
Excessive ponding in long span composite floors shall be avoided by providing required
Propping. Otherwise the profiled sheet deflects considerably requiring additional
concrete at the centre that may add to the concreting cost.

The Structural Elements
Stud shear connectors are invariably used in composite floors. Stud shear connectors
are welded through the sheeting on to the top flange of the beam. Insulation
requirements for fire usually control the slab thickness above the profile. Thickness
values between 65 and 120 min are sufficient to give a fire rating of up to 2 hours.
Lightweight concrete is generally preferred in composite floors due to reduced weight
on profiled sheets and enhanced tire-insulation.
Profiled Sheet Decking
The steel deck is normally rolled into the desired profile from 22G (0.70 min) to 16G
(1.6 mm) galvanized coil. It is profiled such that the profile heights are usually in the
range of 40-60 mm whereas higher depth of 85 mm is also available. The typical trough
width lies between .150 to 350 mm. Generally, spans of the order of 2.5 m to 3.5m
between the beams are chosen and the beams are designed to span between 6 m to 12
m. There are two well-known generic types of profiles.
 Dovetail profile
 Trapezoidal profile with web indentations
Profiled deck shapes are chosen based on the ability to enhance the bond at the steel-
concrete interface and providing stability while supporting wet concrete and other
construction loads.
Indentations and protrusions into the rib mobilise the bearing resistance in addition to
adhesion and also provide the shear transfer in composite slabs.
3.3.4 Composite Column
A composite member subjected mainly to compression and bending is called as

composite column. At present, there is no Indian Standard covering the design of
composite columns. The method of design suggested in this chapter largely follows
EC4, which incorporates the latest research on composite construction.
Indian Standards for composite construction (IS: 11384-1985) does not make any
specific reference to composite columns. The provisions Contained in IS: 456 - 2000
are often invoked for design of composite structures.

The concrete and steel are combined in such a fashion that the advantages of both the
materials are utilised effectively in composite column.
There are many advantages associated with the use of steel-concrete composite
columns: small cross-sections, for example, can be designed to withstand high loads;
similarly. Sections with different resistances, but identical external dimensions can be
produced by varying steel area, concrete strength and additional reinforcement.
Figure 3.9 Typical cross section of composite columns and notation
Thus the outer dimension of a column can be held constant over a number of floors in
a building, simplifying architectural detailing. Also steel-concrete composite members
help to improve the fire resistance. A steel-concrete composite column consists of either
a concrete. Encased hot-rolled steel section or a concrete filled tubular section of hot-
rolled steel and is generally used as a load-bearing member in a composite framed
structure.
In a composite column both the steel and concrete would resist the external, loading by
interacting together by bond and friction. Additional reinforcement in the concrete
encasement prevents excessive spalling of concrete both under normal load and fire
conditions.

During construction, bare steel sections support the initial construction loads, including
the weight of structure during construction. Concrete is later cast around the steel
section, or tilled inside the tubular sections. The lighter weight and higher strength of
steel permit the use of smaller and lighter foundations. The subsequent concrete addition
enables the building frame to easily limit the sway and lateral deflections.
By employing composite columns, the speed of construction can be increased and it is

possible to erect the structures in most efficient manner with significant economic
advantages over either pure structural steel ci reinforced concrete alternatives.
Apart from speed and economy, the following other important advantages can be
achieved.
 Increased strength for a given cross sectional dimension.

 Increased stiffness, leading to reduced slenderness and increased buckling resistance.
 Fire resistance in the case of concrete encased columns is much better.
 Identical cross sections with different load and moment resistances can be produced
by varying steel thickness.

4. Literature review
4.1 Previous History of Composite Construction
Composite construction was first used in both a building and a bridge in U.S. over a
century ago. The first forms of composite structures incorporated the use of steel and
concrete for flexural members, and the dispute of longitudinal slip between these
elements was soon identified.
Composite steel–concrete beams are the earliest form of the composite construction
method. In U.S. a patent by an American engineer was developed for the shear
connectors at the top flange of a universal steel section to prevent longitudinal slip. This
was the beginning of the development of fully composite systems in steel and concrete.
Concrete-encased steel sections were primarily developed in order to overcome the
difficulty of fire resistance and to certify that the stability of the steel section was
maintained throughout loading. The steel section and concrete act compositely to resist
axial force and bending moments.
A composite tubular column was developed because they delivered permanent and
integral formwork for a compression member and were instrumental in reducing
construction time and consequently costs. They diminish the requirement of lateral
reinforcement and costly tying, as well as offer easier connection to steel beams of a
framed structure.
Composite slabs have been familiarised recently to consider the increase in strength that
can be achieved if the profiled steel sheeting is taken into account in strength
calculations. Composite slabs provide stable and integral reinforcement, which
eliminates the need for placing and stripping of plywood and timber formwork. In recent
times, composite slab and beam systems have been developed for reinforced concrete
framed construction; this provides gains similar to those attributed to composite slabs
for reinforced concrete slab and beam systems. These rewards include reduced
construction time due to elimination of formwork and elimination of excessive amounts
of reinforcing steel. This subsequently decreases the span-to-depth ratios of typical
beams and also reduces labour costs.

Literature Review
Figure 4.1 Composite Steel–Concrete Beams and Slabs, Car Park, Australia
The application of profiled steel sheeting as both permanent formwork and

reinforcement to concrete slabs was first developed in America in the early 1950s.
Following its introduction into the United Kingdom in the 1970s it has become the most
common form of floor system for steel framed office buildings. In Australia, in the early
1990’s much research was carried out using the same construction technique in beams
also. In this chapter, a thorough review is given of research into composite construction,
including beams, slab with steel decking and profiled composite beams
4.2 Studies on Composite Construction
4.2.1 Abhishek Sanjay Mahajan, Laxman G. Kalurkar (April 2016) [1] the paper
presents the effect of FEC (Fully Encased Composite) on a G+ 20 storey special
moment frame. In this, paper two different structures are considered for the comparison
under seismic analysis. The linear static analysis and nonlinear static analysis i.e.
“Pushover analysis” are done for G+20 storey structure. The building is analysed and
design for seismic loading by using ETAB software. The unique method of pushover
analysis is followed with the help of FEMA 36 specifications and for hinge formation
ATC40 is considered. Results are compared for the Base shear, Modal time period,
Storey displacement and storey drift for both structures. As the composite is having
more lateral stiffness, the results of time period and storey displacement shows the
significant variation. While analysing for “Non-linear static analysis the performance
point for the FEC is significantly much more as compared to the RCC model.

Literature Review
4.2.2 Anamika Tedia, Dr. Savita Maru (Jan. 2014) [2] Steel-concrete composite
construction means steel section encased in concrete for columns & the concrete slab
or profiled deck slab is connected to the steel beam with the help of mechanical shear
connectors so that they act as a single unit. Steel-concrete composite with R.C.C.
options are considered for comparative study of G+5 storey office building with 3.5 m
height, which is situated in earthquake zone III(Indore)& wind speed 50 m/s. The
overall plan dimension of the building is 56.3 m x 31.94 m. Equivalent Static Method
of Analysis is used. For modelling of Composite & R.C.C. structures, STAAD-pro
software is used and the results are compared; and it is found that composite structure
more economical. In this, the cost comparison reveals that Steel-Concrete composite
design structure is more costly, reduction in direct costs of steel-composite structure
resulting from speedy erection will make Steel-concrete Composite structure
economically viable. Further, under earthquake considerations because of the inherent
ductility characteristics, Steel-Concrete structure will perform better than a
conventional R.C.C. structure.
4.2.3 Aniket Sijaria, Prof. Anubhav Rai , Prof Y.K. Bajpai (June– 2014) [3] they
did Planning, Analysis, Design & Cost Comparison of an Institutional Building with
steel-concrete composite construction. The proposal structure is a G+5 building (56.3
m x 31.94m) With 3.658 m as the height of each floor. The Analysis and design involves
the structure planning, load calculation, analysis it by 2D modelling using STAAD-Pro
2003, design of composite floors and columns, design of steel beams and design of
foundation. Analysis has been done for various load combinations including seismic
load, wind load, etc. as per the IS Code of Practice. The project also involves analysis
and design of an equivalent R.C.C. structure so that a cost comparison can be made
between a steel-concrete composite structure and an equivalent R.C.C. structure. After
detailed analysis they come to know that the structure having composite beam is proved
82.36% more economical than the RCC beam.
4.2.4 A. Sattainathan Sharma, R. Anjughap Priya, R. Thirugnanam and P. Rathna

Priya (January 2016) [4] did Comparative Study on Multi-storey Structure of R.C.C
and Composite Material using ETAB 2013 for the G+20 story building (Plan dimension
30 X 24 m), They conclude that The displacement (deflection) and storey drift in R.C.C.
Structure is less than composite structure but are in permissible limit as prescribed by

Literature Review
the codal provisions. It is due to the flexibility of composite structure when compared
to RCC structures. Dead weight is 20-25% reduces so, seismic force is 15-20% less as
compare to RCC. The Stiffness of the composite structure is found greater when
compared with RCC structure. Presents work shows that by using Concrete Filled Steel
Tubular (CFST) column in design of tall buildings offers good results when compared
to R.C.C and conventional steel building and also economically serve as a better
solution for tall buildings. Weight of composite structure is low when compared to
R.C.C. structure resulting in reduction of foundation cost. For high rise structures,
composite structures are found to be the best mode of construction.
4.2.5 Bhavin H. Zaveri, Bhargav K. Panchotiya, Smit U. Patel, Pratik A. Bilimoria

(Aug. 2016) [5] they did parametric study of RCC, steel and composite structures under
seismic loading. For that they modelled and analysed the low rise (g+5) storey RCC,
steel and composite buildings for the same grid pattern and same external loads. RCC
building elements are determined using is 456 and that of steel structure are determined
using is 800. For composite building, due to unavailability of Indian codes, sections are
determined using ANSI codes. They did analysis on ETABS v.15. They compare beam
forces, column forces, joint displacements, storey accelerations, storey drifts, storey
maximum displacements, storey stiffness and storey shear. After analysis they come to
know that for given seismic conditions and low rise buildings, RCC construction can
be better. Because composite construction is much stiffer so resulted into attracting
large amount of seismic forces and so it is not suitable for these conditions. And Steel
construction is showing comparatively more deformations and very less stiffness
resulting into less convenient construction.
4.2.6 Bhavin H. Zaveri, Jasmin A. Gadhiya, Hitesh K. Dhameliya (January 2016)

[6] they did Comparative Study of Steel, RCC and Composite Building. This paper
shows comparison of various aspects of building construction for steel, RCC as well as
composite buildings, they come to know that Overall response of composite structure
is better than RCC structure i.e. composite structure produces less displacement and
resists more structural forces. Composite structures are best solution for high rise
buildings and they are resulted in speedy construction. Steel option is better than RCC
but the composite option for high rise building is best. Steel has excellent resistance to
tensile loading but prone to buckling and concrete gives more resistance to compressive

Literature Review
force. Steel can be used to induce ductility and concrete can be used for corrosion and
fire protection. Composite structures are resulted into lighter construction than
traditional concrete construction as well as speedy construction. So, completion period
of composite building is less than RCC building.
4.2.7 Deepak M Jirage, Prof. V.G. Sayagavi, Prof. N.G. Gore (September 2015) [7]
In the present work steel concrete composite with RCC options are considered for
comparative study of G+20 story building which is situated in earthquake zone-IV and
for earthquake loading, the provisions of IS: 1893 (Part1)-2002 is considered. A 3D
Modelling and analysis of the structure are carried out with the help of ETAB software.
They found that the base shear of Composite structure is reduced by 20% as compared
with RCC structure. The axial force in Composite structure is less as compare with RCC
by 18%, because the self-weight of the RCC structure is more. The time period of
Composite is more as compare to RCC. Time required for construction of composite
structure is less as compare with RCC structure because no form work is required. In
general, composite structure proved more economical.
4.2.8 D. R. Panchal and P. M. Marathe (December, 2011) [8] Steel-concrete

composite systems for buildings are designed by connecting the steel beam to the
concrete slab or profiled deck slab with the help of mechanical shear connectors so that
they act as a single unit. they did comparative study of G+30 storey commercial building
(Plan dimension 24 m x 42 m) which is situated in earthquake zone IV made up with
steel concrete composite, steel and R.C.C.. Equivalent Static Method of Analysis is
used. For modelling ETABS software is used and the results are compared; and it is
found that composite structure is found to be more economical.
Results obtain as compare to RCC framed structure

Steel framed struc. Composite struc.
dead weight 32% reduces 30% reduces
Main beam 131% increases 100% reduces
Shear force
Secondary beam 83.3% increases 10% reduces
Main beam 131% increases 117% reduces
Bending
Secondary beam 83.3% increases 48% increases
moment

Literature Review
Axial force (in column) 46% reduces 7% reduces

In x dir. 34% reduces 5% increases
Bending
In y dir. 25% reduces 26% reduces
force
4.2.9 Jeeva K, Prof. G. Augustine Maniraj Pandian (2015) [9] Two types of
composite columns are being used in this project work; one is structural steel in filled
in concrete (SRC) and concrete filled steel tubes (CFT). In this project an attempt is
being made to compare the structural behaviour of steel and steel-concrete composite
structures for four different storey levels ranging from G+7 (21.35m) to G+10 (30.05m)
structures under response spectrum and pushover analyses. Pushover analysis which is
a non-linear static analysis is a popular tool for predicting seismic forces and
deformation demands for performance evaluation of existing and new structures. In this
analysis the structure is subjected to an incremental lateral load of certain pattern and
the resultant crack formation, yielding and plastic hinge formation and failure of
structural components are noted. Pushover analysis enables one to predict the maximum
displacement and base shear in the structure at the verge of collapse; it further indicates
the time period at which the structure attains non-linearity stage; target displacement
values as well as drift are also found. The above parameters obtainable under pushover
analysis are compared with that of linear response spectrum analysis. The results
indicate that SRC structures are more flexible and they have high displacement values
along longitudinal direction; however along the lateral direction the composite
structures have lower displacement and drift values compared to steel structures. G+10
storey steel structures are found to suffer maximum displacement and bases shear.
4.2.10 Mahesh Suresh Kumawat, L G Kalurkar (May 2014) [10] modelled G+9
story commercial building (24 m X 36 m)made with RCC and composite material
which is situated in earthquake zone-III and for earthquake loading, the provisions of
IS: 1893 (Part1)-2002 is considered. A 3D modelling and analysis of the structure are
carried out with the help of SAP 2000 software. After analysis….
Results obtain for composite structure as compare to RCC

In transverse direction 12-15 % increases
Story stiffness In longitudinal direction 6-10 % increases

Literature Review
In transverse direction 41-58 % decreases

Lateral displacement In longitudinal direction 37-57 % decreases
Twisting moment In longitudinal direction 39-65 % decreases
Shear force in ext column In longitudinal direction 30-45 % decreases
frequency - 10-17 % increases
Time period - 14-29 % decreases
4.2.11 Murtuza S. Aainawala (June 2016) [11] He evaluate and compare the seismic
performance of G+15 storey made up of RCC and composite structures by ETABS 2015
software. Both steel and concrete composite structures having concrete filled steel tube
and RCC structures were having soft storey at ground level, structures were located in
the region of earthquake zone IV on a medium soil. Equivalent static and response
spectrum method is used for analysis. Storey drift, Displacement, self-weight, bending
moment and shear force, are considered as parameters. When compared composite
structures shows better performance than RCC.
4.2.12 Nitish A. Mohite, P. K. Joshi, Dr. W. N. Deulkar (October 2015) [12] they
did Comparative Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete-Composite [B + (G + 11) Storey]
Building. Steel-concrete-composite buildings are formed by connecting the steel beams
with concrete slab or profiled deck slab with the help of mechanical shear connectors
so that slab and beam act as a single unit. In this paper, options of construction of
(B+G+11storey) commercial building, situated in Kolhapur, with steel-concrete-
composite and RCC are studied and compared with each other. Equivalent linear Static
Method of Analysis explained in ETABS version 15 software is used and results are
compared for different parameters. Comparative parameter includes roof deflections,
base shear, storey drifts, for the building and axial forces and bending moments for
column’s and beams at different level. It is observed that steel-concrete-composite
building is found to be more safe and economical and better option.
4.2.13 Nitin m. Warade1, P. J. Salunke (December, 2013) [13] this paper deals with
the study of composite structure as compare with the concrete and steel structure. The
composite structure is far more advantageous over steel and concrete structure regarding

Literature Review
Strength, Costs, and Time Period requirements. 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 this paper deals with the design of
composite building with fixed base. In this paper 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. In all the options the values of story displacements are within the permissible
limits as per code limits. Steel and composite structure gives more ductility to the
structure as compared to the R.C.C. which is best suited under the effect of lateral
forces. Total saving in the composite option as compared to the R.C.C. results in 10 %
so as with Steel it will be 6-7%.
4.2.14 Prasad Kolhe, Prof. Rakesh Shinde (May 2015) [14] Time History Analysis
(THA) is a step-by-step analysis of the dynamic response of a non-linear structure to a
specified loading that may vary with time. In this, time history of representative
earthquake is used to determine the seismic response of a structure under dynamic
loading. In this work steel sections and composite sections (steel + concrete) are
considered for comparative study of high rise residential building in earthquake zone
IV. For analysis purpose Time History Method is used. In this work same plan is used
for comparison. Load combinations are taken from IS code. After analysis they
conclude that Composite frame has the lowest values of storey drift because of its
stiffness. The differences in storey drift for different stories along X and Y direction are
owing to orientation of column sections. Moments of inertia of column sections are
different in both directions. Base shear gets reduced by 10% for Steel frame in
comparison to the Composite frame.
4.2.15 Rajendra R. Bhoir, Prof. Mahesh Bagade (July 2016) [15] in this paper two
residential g+15 storied composite and RCC structure are analysed and designed in
ETAB software with two different story heights 3m and 4m. It is found that the depth
of beams in composite structure is lesser than of RCC structure, which results to also
reduce the sizes of columns in composite structure. it is also seen that the concrete and
steel consumption in composite structure is less but as they are using hot rolled sections
the structural steel consumption is increased. They conclude that composite action

Literature Review
increases the load carrying capacity and stiffness by factors of around 2 and 3.5
respectively. They conclude that composite structure proved more economical.
4.2.16 Renavikar Aniket, Suryawanshi Yogesh (July 2016) [16] they did
Comparative Study on Analysis and Cost of R.C.C. and Steel-Composite Structure. The
paper involves Analysis of a residential building with steel-concrete composite and
RCC construction. The proposed structure is a four multi-storeyed buildings of G+9,
G+12, G+15, G+18, with 3.0m as the height of each floor with (plan dimension 15m x
9m). The analysis done by 2D modelling using software STAAD-Pro 2007, load
combinations taken as per the IS Code. The project involves analysis of an equivalent
RCC structure so that a cost comparison can be made between a composite structure
and an equivalent RCC structure. Because of the inherent ductility characteristics,
composite structure will perform better than conventional RCC structure. The axial
forces, seismic forces, bending moment and deflections in RCC are more as compared
to the composite structure. There is the reduction in cost of steel structure as compared
to RCC structure due to reduction in dimensions of elements. Composite option is better
than RCC for high rise building because Weight of composite structure is low as
compared to RCC structure which helps in reducing the foundation cost and it is
subjected to fewer amounts of forces induced due to the earthquake Composite structure
is more economical than that of RCC structure. Composite structures are the best
solution for high rise structure as compared to RCC structure. Speedy construction
facilitates quicker return on the invested capital and benefits in terms of rent.
4.2.17 Prof. S. S. Charantimath, Prof. Swapnil B. Cholekar, Manjunath M. Birje

(2014) [17] for medium to high-rise buildings R.C.C structure is no longer economic
because of increased dead load, less stiffness, span restriction and hazardous formwork.
The Composite structures are the best solution for high rise structure as compared to
R.C.C structure. The present paper is an attempt to study the state of art of seismic
performance evaluation of RCC and composite building. an analytical study on the
structural behaviour of RCC and composite high rise building (G+10, G+20, G+30)
having plan dimension of 30 m x 24 meter is under taken. The parameters considered
are displacements, axial forces, base shear and natural period. The 3D analysis has been
carried out using structural analysis software ETABS 2013 and the results such as
maximum values of displacements, axial forces, base shear and natural periods are

Literature Review
found out by analysis. They conclude that there is a reduction in the total weight of the
Composite framed structure as the dead weight of a composite structure is less
compared to an R.C.C. structure, it is subjected to less amount of forces induced due to
the earthquake. It is clear that the nodal displacements in a composite structure, by both
the methods of seismic analysis, compared to an R.C.C. structure in all the 3 global
directions are less which is due to the higher stiffness of members in a composite
structure compared to an RCC structure. As the sizes of the column members from
R.C.C option to the composite option reduces axial forces in column have been reduced
in Composite framed structure as compared to RCC framed structure. Composite
structures are more economical than that of RCC structure. Speedy construction
facilitates quicker return on the invested capital and benefits in terms of rent.
4.2.18 Shweta A. Wagh, Dr. U. P. Waghe (April 2014) [18] they did Comparative
Study of R.C.C and Steel Concrete Composite Structures. Steel concrete composite
construction has gained wide acceptance worldwide as an alternative to pure steel and
pure concrete construction. In this paper study of four various multi-storeyed
commercial buildings i.e. G+12, G+16, G+20, G+24 are analysed by using STAAD-
Pro software. Where 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. They conclude that composite structural system proved more
economical in case of high rise buildings and strength and serviceability criteria are
satisfied fully.
4.2.19 Umesh P. Patil, Suryanarayana M (June-2015) [19] Comparing to RCC

structure, steel concrete composite system are being more prevalent due to the various
advantages they offer. Both speed and economy can be achieved in case of composite
systems. An attempt was made in this paper to evaluate and compare the seismic
performance of G+ 15 storey made of RCC and composite structure. ETABS 2013
software was used for the purpose. Both steel and concrete composite structures and
RCC structures were having soft storey at ground level; structures were located in the
region of earthquake zone III on a medium soil. Equivalent static and response spectrum
method is used for analysis. Storey drift, self weight, bending moment and shear force,
are considered as parameters. When compared composite structures shows better
performance than RCC.

Literature Review
4.2.20 Vaishali Ambe, Dr. Savita Maru (January 2015) [20] they did analysis of
G+26 multi-story unsymmetrical building using the STAAD Pro V8i. Software with the
different load combination as recommended by IS Code have been taken into
consideration. Identification of maximum bending moment at beam and column are
evaluated. Based on the output of the analysis further design part related to building has
been performed. Further the study and design of same building with the same load
combinations were conducted based on Steel- Concrete Composite Structure manually.
The results of both types of framed structure were studies conducted theoretically and
compared. It has been observed the Steel – Concrete Composite Structure is found to
be more economical as compared to regular conventional RCC structure during Costing.
But While after performing the Life cycle cost analysis it has been found that the
Composite Structure proved more economical.
4.2.21 Varsha Patil, Shilpa Kewate (August 2015) [21] RCC and steel are the
materials that are mostly used in the framing system for most of the building. Steel
members have the advantages of high tensile strength and ductility, while concrete
members have the advantages of high compressive strength and stiffness. Composite
members combine steel and concrete, resulting in a member that has the beneficial
qualities of both materials. The study is based on structural behaviour of Composite,
RCC and Steel structure when subjected to earthquake. In this RCC, steel and composite
materials are considered for comparative study of G+5 story commercial building which
is situated in earthquake zone III, The provisions of IS:1893 (Part 1) is considered. A
3D modelling and analysis of the structure are carried out with the help of ETABS 2013
software. Equivalent static analysis and Response spectrum analysis are carried out on
all three structures. The results are compared in terms of base shear, Lateral force
distribution, maximum displacement, Time period and frequency, and found that
composite structure gives better performance compare to RCC and steel.

5. Problem formulation & software implementation
In this chapter procedure for modeling problem structures using Etabs is discussed, also
how static, modal and dynamic response spectrum analysis is performed using Etabs is
described. Special modeling consideration for modeling of RCC shear wall, composite
deck slab, response spectrum analysis are shown briefly.
5.1 Problem statement
In present work in order to compare reinforced concrete, steel and composite frame
structure for use in earthquake prone area G+12 multi storey building having plan
dimension 24 m x 42 m is modeled and analyzed in Etabs 2015 version 15.2.2
integrated building design software. Equivalent static analysis and dynamic response
spectrum analysis is performed on the structure. Following three types of buildings are
modeled:
1. Steel building
2. Conventional RCC building
3. Composite building (with composite column, steel beam & profiled steel deck)
5.1.1 Material data
Table 5.1 Material data
Material Weight M.O.E. (E) Shear Poisson Co effi. Of

modulus ratio thermal
(KN/M³) (KN/M²)
(G) expansion
Steel (fe = 415) 78.5 2 x 108 76884615 0.3 11.7 x10−6
Steel (fe = 345) 76.9 2 x 108 80769230 0.3 11.7 x10−6
Concrete (fck = 25) 25 25 x 106 10416666.7 0.2 9.9 x10−6
Masonry 20 11 x 106 521739.13 0.15 07 x10−6

Problem Formulation and Software Implementation
5.1.2 Geometrical Data
Type of building : Commercial building
location of building : Surat
Height of building : 50 m ( including foundation depth 4.5 m )
Storey Height of building : 3.5 m
5.1.3 Loading Data
Live load : on ground floor 10 KN/M² (parking area)
: on office area 4 KN/M²
: on passage area 4 KN/M²
: on urinal area 2 KN/M²
: On stairs 4 KN/M²
Floor finish : 1.5 KN/M²
Water proofing : 2.5 KN/M² (terrace)
5.1.4 Earthquake Data
Frame : Special moment resisting frame
Location : Surat
Zone factor : 0.16 (zone III)
Importance factor : 1.5
Response reduction factor :5
Soil type : Medium ( type 2)

5.1.5 Load combination
Table 5.2 Load combination
RCC composite steel
1.5 ( DL + LL ) 1.35 DL + 1.5 LL 1.5 ( DL + LL )
1.2 (DL + LL ± EQX ) 1.35 DL + 1.5 LL ± 1.05 EQX 1.2 (DL + LL ± EQX )
1.2 (DL + LL ± EQY ) 1.35 DL + 1.5 LL ± 1.05 EQY 1.2 (DL + LL ± EQY )
1.2 (DL ± EQX ) 1.35 DL + 1.05 LL ± 1.05 EQX 1.5 (DL ± EQX )
1.2 (DL ± EQY ) 1.35 DL + 1.05 LL ± 1.05 EQY 1.5 (DL ± EQY )
0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQX 1.5 (DL ± EQX ) 0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQX
0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQY 1.5 (DL ± EQY ) 0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQY
Load combination are taken from IS: 875 (part V) and for earthquake IS: 1893 –
2002. Earthquake load is applied in both x and y direction.
Figure 5.1 Plan view of building

Figure 5.2 Beam grid of typical floor plan
5.1.6 Member Sizes for Particular Building
Table 5.3 RCC Structure member size
REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBER SIZE
RCC COLUMN RCC BEAM
Foundation to ground floor 0.7 m x 0.7 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.6 m
Secondary beam -
1st floor to 4th floor 0.7 m x 0.7 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.53 m
Secondary beam 0.3 m x 0.45 m
5th floor to 8th floor 0.65 m x 0.65 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.53 m
9th floor to 12th floor 0.53 m x 0.53 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.45 m
Stairs cabin 0.53 m x 0.53 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.45 m

Table 5.4 Steel structure member size
STEEL MEMBER SIZE
COLUMN BEAM
Foundation to 0.7 m x 0.7 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.6 m

ground floor
Secondary beam -
1st floor to 4th floor UC 356 x 406 x 340 Main beam UB 457 x 191 x 98
with 25 mm thick cover
plates on both the sides. Secondary beam UB 406 x 178
x 74
5th floor to 8th floor UC 356 x 406 x 287 Main beam UB 457 x 191 x 89
x 54
9th floor to 12th floor UC 356 x 406 x 129 Main beam UB 457 x 191 x 82
x 67
Stairs cabin UC 356 x 406 x 129 Main beam UB 457 x 152 x 60

x 67
Table 5.5 Steel-concrete composite structure member size
STEEL- CONCRETE COMPOSITE MEMBER SIZE
COLUMN BEAM
Foundation to 0.6 x 0.6 m Main beam: 0.3 m x 0.6 m

ground floor Concrete encased with
embedded UC 254 x 254 x 132 Secondary beam -
with 8 nos. of 20 mm dia.
peripheral reinforcement.
1st floor to 4th 0.53 x 0.53 m Main beam: UB 457 x 191 x 89

floor with 25 mm cover plate

Concrete encased with

Secondary beam:
embedded UC 254 x 254 x 107
with 8 nos. of 20 mm dia. UB 533 x 210 x 101
peripheral reinforcement.
5th floor to 8th 0.45 x 0.45 m Main beam: UB 457 x 191 x 89

Secondary beam:
peripheral reinforcement. UB 533 x 210 x 101
9th floor to 12th 0.45 x 0.45 m Main beam: UB 457 x 191 x 89

Secondary beam:
Stairs cabin 0.45 x 0.45 m Main beam: UB 457 x 191 x 89

Concrete encased with with 25 mm cover plate
Secondary beam:
SHEAR STUD
Type Headed stud
material Fe 540 HT ( IS : 961-1975 )
Height ( 𝒉𝒔 ) 100 mm
diameter 20 mm
Load per stud ( 𝒑𝒄 ) 62 KN
PROFILED SHEET
Yield stress 345 KG/M²
Slab depth ( 𝒕𝒄 ) : 80 mm
Rib width top ( 𝑾𝒓𝒕 ) : 95 mm
Rib width bottom ( 𝑾𝒓𝒃 ) : 30 mm

Rib spacing ( 𝑺𝒓 ) :180 mm
Deck thickness :1 mm
Deck unit weight : 0.11 KN/M²
5.1.7 General Member Size for All Type of Building
Floor & Stair slab : 125 mm
Lift slab : 150 mm
Shear wall : 300 mm
5.2 About Etabs
Etabs software is exclusively made for modeling, analysis and design of buildings.
Various facilities in the Etabs are listed below
 Etabs provide object based modeling. It takes slab as area object, column, beam,
brace as a line object and support, mass, loads as point objects.
 Etabs has feature known as similar story. By which similar stories can be edited
and modeled simultaneously. Due to which building is modeled very speedily.
 Etabs can perform various P-delta, Response Spectrum, Static Non-linear, Time
history, Construction sequence and many more analysis with good graphics.
 Etabs automates templates for typical structures like steel deck, waffle slab, flat
stab, Ribbed Slab etc.
 Etabs can do optimization of steel section.
 Etabs has a facility to design composite beam. Also composite deck can be
modeled in Etabs.
 Etabs has powerful facility of Section designer. By which different types of
composite sections can be made easily.

5.3 Software validation
For verification of software a G+5 story building example is taken from nicee website.
The results of which are compared with the results of Etabs.
Data for building
Plan dimension : 22.5 x 22.5 m
Typical story height :5m
Bottom story height : 4.1 m
Slab thickness : 0.1 m
Column size : 0.6 x 0.6 m
Main beam : 0.3 x 0.6 m
Secondary beam : 0.2 x 0.5 m
wall : 0.230 m thick about periphery
load : Live load 4 KN/M² on floor
1 KN/M² on roof
: floor finish 1 KN/M²
: water proofing 2 KN/M²
Earthquake data : zone III, type II soil & important factor 1.5
For this example story shear, story displacement and story drifts are compared with the
result of Etabs. These results are found satisfactory.

Figure 5.3 Software validation problem
Figure 5.4 Software validation problem plan layout & elevation

Comparison of results
Table 5.6 Comparison of software verification result
story shear story displacement story drifts
Storey
manual Etabs manual Etabs manual Etabs
7 480 469.28 79.43 80.80 7.23 7.02
6 860 845.96 72.20 73.81 12.19 12.03
5 1104 1091.95 60.01 61.78 15.68 15.69
4 1242 1231.29 44.33 46.09 17.58 17.79
3 1304 1294.04 26.75 28.30 17.26 17.89
2 1320 1310.22 9.49 10.43 9.08 10.58
1 1320 1310.90 0 0 0 0
Above results indicates that Etabs result are well matched with the taken example result.
5.4 Modeling of building using Etabs
The building is modeled using the Software ETABS 2015 ultimate 15.2.2. Different
elements of building are modeled as below.
Beams and Columns are modeled as two nodded beam element with six degree of
freedom at each node.
Slab is modeled as four nodded shell element with six DOF at each node for RCC and
Membrane clement for steel and Composite structure. Shell element has both in plane
and out of plane stiffness while membrane element ha only out of plane stiffness.

5.4.1 Fixing Of Member Sizes
First of all steel building, is modeled, and the section for the beam and column is
assigned Auto select section of universal standard sections. Auto select section is the
range of the sections from which Etabs selects optimum section by iteration for the
given loading condition. After that design of building is carried out as per Indian
standard IS: 800-1998 using optimal section out of given auto select section. And these
sections are used for the steel building analysis. During design of steel section grouping
of column, main beam and secondary beam is done so that they have similar sections
Column is prepared in Section Designer.
For RCC structure beam and column dimensions are fixed by taking equivalent area of
steel. . Equivalent area is taken by multiplying steel section area by the modular i.e.
ratio of elastic modulus of steel and concrete.
For composite structure same procedure is followed as above. Main beam is prepared
in Section Designer in composite structure. The length of each beam is divided into
small parts of lm interval and connected with slab so as to get composite action.
5.4.2 Stepwise Procedure for Modeling of Building in Etabs
Step 1: Define Storey data like Storey height, no of Storey etc.
Step 2: Select Code preference from option and then define material properties.
Step 3: Define Frame Section from Define menu like column, beam.
Step 4: Define Slab Section
Step 5: Draw building Elements from draw menu.
Step 6: Give the support conditions.
Step 7: Define load cases and load combination
Step 8: Assign load
Step 9: Define mass source
Step 10: Give the structure auto line constraint.
Step 11: Give renumbering to the whole structure.
Step 12: Select analysis option and run analysis

5.4.3 Modeling of Building for Current Problem in Etabs
 Concrete is taken of M 25 grade and steel of Fe 415 grade. Material properties

are assigned as below.
Figure 5.5 Defining material properties in Etabs
 Column sections are made in section designer. Following fig. 5.6 shows the
built up column and composite column which are made in section designer of
Etabs. Supports are assigned as fixed support for main beam and pinned for
secondary beam. Column is continuous and fixed at end.
 For RCC slab is modeled as membrane while for composite modeled as deck
slab in Etabs. Direction of deck is always transverse to the span. Slab and deck
both are defined as a rigid diaphragm.

Figure 5.6 Steel columns in section designer
Figure 5.7 Defining of slab in Etabs
Figure 5.8 Defining of load cases in Etabs

 Static and dynamic analysis is performed on the building. In dynamic analysis

first modal analysis first modal analysis is performed by considering 20 numbers
of modes.
 Ritz vector method is applied for Eigen value calculation, because it gives more
accurate results. Ritz load factor are applied as acceleration in the X, Y, and Z
direction.
5.5 Response spectrum analysis in Etabs
 The response spectrum analysis first model analysis is to be performed.

Response spectrum analysis uses the modal period, Eigen value from the modal
analysis.
 Response spectrum function is defined as RCC in etabs as shown in fig. 5.8.
Damping value for RCC is taken 5% and for steel is taken as 2%.
Figure 5.9 Defining response spectrum function in Etabs

 After defining Response spectrum function load cases are defined for the
Response spectrum. Here spectrum load are defined as func1.
 For model response (story shear, story moment etc.) combination complete
quadratic combination (CQC) method is used. As model period are closely
spaced. Directional combination is done by CQC3.
 For input spectra predefined response spectrum function RCC is used. Scale
factor is initially taken as 1.
 After that analysis is run. The base shear of story one due to response spectrum
load is compared with base shear due to static equivalent analysis.
 Now as per IS 1893-2002 the base shear is to be scaled to the ratio of base shear
due to earthquake force and base shear due to response spectrum force. In this
case scale factor is 1300
Figure 5.10 Defining and scaling response spectrum load in Etabs

6. Analysis, Result and Discussion
In present work in order to compare seismic response of RCC, steel and composite
building, Equivalent Static analysis as well as Response Spectrum Analysis is
performed.
The main difference between the equivalent static analysis and dynamic analysis lies in
the magnitude and distribution of lateral forces over the height of the building.
In the equivalent lateral force procedure the magnitude of forces is based on an

estimation of the fundamental period and on distribution of forces, as given by simple
formula in IS 1893- 2002.
In the dynamic analysis procedure the lateral forces are based on the properties of the
natural vibration modes of the building, which are determined by the distribution of
mass and stiffness over height.
The maximum sagging and hogging bending moment, shear force, axial force of each
column and beam are calculated and tabulated below. Also Storey drift, Base shear
distribution, seismic load, Storey displacement, time period are tabulated and compared.
6.1 Storey shear, Storey moment, Storey displacement and Storey

stiffness
6.1.1 Seismic weight
Seismic weight of the RCC, steel and composite building is 120888.58 KN, 105529.92
KN, and 107339.48 KN respectively. So, seismic weight of steel building is 12.70 %,
11.20 % lower than seismic weight of the RCC building.
Seismic weight of the building is calculated by considering self-weight of slab, column,

beam, floor finish, wall and 50% of live load.

Analysis, Result and Discussion
Table 6.1 Weight of dif. structure
WEIGHT OF DIF. STRUCTURE (in KN)
STORY RCC STEEL COMPOSITE

stairs cabin 1827.13 1378.26 1372.88
Storey 12. 11311.12 8455.90 9098.89
Storey 11 9532.62 8549.33 8455.03
Storey 10 9523.36 8549.33 8455.03
Storey 9 9523.36 8549.33 8455.03
Storey 8 9524.80 8640.26 8594.88
Storey 7 9560.53 8722.70 8600.13
Storey 6 9560.53 8722.70 8600.13
Storey 5 8689.82 8722.70 8600.13
Storey 4 10153.56 8794.23 8698.92
Storey 3 10545.09 8815.06 8802.81
Storey 2 10571.65 8815.06 9802.81
Storey 1 10565.01 8815.06 9802.81
TOTAL 120888.58 105529.92 107339.48
12000
10000 Chart Title
Weight (KN)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
stairs Storey Storey Storey Storey Storey Storey Storey Storey Storey Storey Storey Storey
cabin 12. 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Storey No.
RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
Figure 6.1 Weight of the structure

6.1.2 Storey shear and moment
The magnitude of the lateral force depends on the mass of the building depend at each
floor level, the distribution of stiffness over height and the Storey displacement in a
given mode.
Table 6.2 Storey shear in both x and y direction (KN)
STORY SHEAR ( in both x and y direction) (KN)

structure RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
storey static dynamic static dynamic static dynamic
Stairs cabin 112.11 94.17 87.89 93.20 91.61 95.04
terrace(story 12) 796.67 617.90 554.28 528.02 616.76 584.96
story 11 1262.05 912.55 957.50 818.55 1034.05 899.46
Story10 1654.36 1112.64 1297.76 993.04 1386.18 1096.47
Story9 1980.22 1251.03 1580.39 1096.27 1678.66 1222.86
Story8 2248.75 1354.36 1813.18 1164.60 1920.99 1319.05
Story7 2470.34 1451.82 2000.30 1228.97 2114.04 1406.73
Story6 2641.68 1560.82 2144.98 1312.25 2263.31 1503.32
Story5 2730.91 1643.51 2252.67 1425.60 2374.42 1621.00
Story4 2826.68 1782.97 2329.45 1567.22 2453.89 1761.67
Story3 2892.07 1943.79 2380.04 1723.01 2506.76 1916.29
Story2 2930.60 2099.89 2409.78 1873.41 2537.83 2065.88
Story1 2949.24 2227.65 2424.17 1998.36 2552.87 2190.48
base 2956.42 2322.10 2432.06 2143.21 2560.80 2346.96
3500
Storey shear (KN)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000 RCC
500 steel
0
composite
Storey No.
Figure 6.2 Storey shear for static analysis

3500
3000
Storey shear (KN)

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
RCC STATIC RCC DYNAMIC
STEEL STATIC STEEL DYNAMIC
COMPOSITE STATIC COMPOSITE DYNAMIC
Figure 6.3 Comparison of storey shear for static and dynamic analysis
Table 6.3 Comparison of Storey shear for static and dynamic analysis (in %)
Storey RCC STEEL COMPOSITE

Stairs cabin *-16 6.04 3.74
terrace(story 12) -22.43 -4.73 -5.15
story 11 -27.69 -14.51 -13.01
Story10 -32.74 -23.48 -20.89
Story9 -36.82 -30.63 -27.15
Story8 -39.77 -35.77 -31.33
Story7 -41.22 -38.56 -33.45
Story6 -40.91 -38.82 -33.57
Story5 -39.81 -36.71 -31.73
Story4 -36.92 -32.72 -28.20
Story3 -32.78 -27.60 -23.55
Story2 -28.34 -22.25 -18.59
Story1 -24.46 -17.56 -14.19
base -21.45 -11.87 -8.35
(Refer table 6.2)

Note:
(1) * -ve sign indicate increment and +ve sign indicates decrement.
(2) When comparison is done between static and dynamic analysis results, change
in result due to dynamic analysis is indicated in terms of % with respect to static
analysis.
(3) Comparison of steel and composite structure is done with respect to RCC
structure.
Table 6.4 Comparison of Storey shear with respect to RCC building (in %)
Static analysis Dynamic analysis

Storey
Steel Composite Steel Composite
Stairs cabin 21.60 18.28 01.03 -0.92
terrace(story 12) 30.42 22.58 14.54 05.33
story 11 24.13 18.06 10.30 01.43
Story10 21.55 16.21 10.74 01.45
Story9 20.19 15.22 12.37 02.25
Story8 19.36 14.57 14.01 02.61
Story7 19.02 14.42 15.34 03.11
Story6 18.80 14.32 15.92 03.68
Story5 17.51 13.05 13.25 01.36
Story4 17.59 13.18 07.63 01.19
Story3 17.70 13.32 11.35 01.41
Story2 17.77 13.40 10.78 01.61
Story1 17.80 13.43 10.29 01.66
base 17.73 13.38 07.70 -01.07

Table 6.5 Storey moment in x direction (KN-m)
STOREY MOMENT ( in x direction) (KN-m)

Stairs cabin 392.38 375.61 307.62 326.19 320.65 356.68
terrace(story 12) 3180.73 2716.50 2247.60 2172.36 2479.31 2380.44
story 11 7597.90 6092.64 5598.86 5017.00 6098.50 5347.05
Story10 13388.15 10094.66 10141.01 8413.96 10950.12 8785.09
Story9 20318.92 14480.29 15672.36 12065.19 16825.44 12411.18
Story8 28189.55 19133.39 22018.50 14163.54 23548.89 16101.21
Story7 36835.76 24015.46 29019.56 17195.46 30948.05 19831.90
Story6 46081.63 29142.88 36527.01 20196.06 38869.65 23632.56
Story5 55639.82 34548.67 44411.37 23285.69 47180.13 27576.45
Story4 65533.21 40251.53 52564.44 26622.75 55768.74 31773.41
Story3 75655.46 46323.85 60894.58 30357.91 64542.39 36339.90
Story2 85912.57 52813.84 69328.81 34587.24 73424.80 41353.71
Story1 96234.91 59721.83 77813.40 39326.99 82359.84 46824.72
base 109538.79 69142.20 88757.68 46121.88 93883.42 54507.16
120000
Storey Moment (KN-m)
100000
80000
60000
40000 RCC
20000 STEEL
0 COMPOSITE
STOREY NO.
Figure 6.4 Storey moment for static analysis

120000
100000
80000 RCC Static
60000 RCC Dynamic
40000 STEEL Static
20000 STEEL Dynamic
0 Composite Staic
Composite Dynamic
Figure 6.5 Storey moment for static and dynamic analysis
Table 6.6 Comparison of Storey moment for static and dynamic analysis
In x direction (in %)

Stairs cabin 04.27 -06.03 -11.24
terrace(story 12) 14.59 03.35 03.98
story 11 19.81 10.39 12.32
Story10 24.60 17.03 19.77
Story9 28.73 23.01 26.24
Story8 32.12 35.67 31.63
Story7 34.80 40.75 35.91
Story6 36.75 44.70 39.20
Story5 37.91 58.41 41.55
Story4 38.57 58.09 43.03
Story3 38.76 50.15 43.69
Story2 38.52 44.34 43.67
Story1 37.94 49.45 43.15
base 36.87 48.03 41.94
(Refer table 6.4)

Table 6.7 Comparison of Storey moment with respect to RCC


Storey
Stairs cabin 21.59 18.28 13.16 05.03
terrace(story 12) 29.34 22.05 20.03 12.37
story 11 26.31 19.73 17.65 12.24
Story10 24.25 18.21 16.65 12.97
Story9 22.86 17.19 16.68 14.29
Story8 21.89 16.46 25.97 15.85
Story7 21.21 15.98 28.39 17.42
Story6 20.73 15.65 30.69 18.91
Story5 20.18 15.20 32.60 20.18
Story4 19.79 14.90 33.86 21.06
Story3 19.51 14.69 34.47 21.55
Story2 19.30 14.54 26.94 21.69
Story1 19.14 14.42 34.14 21.59
base 18.97 14.29 33.29 21.17

Table 6.8 Storey moment in y direction (KN-m)
STOREY MOMENT ( in y direction) (KN-m)

STRUCTURE RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
Stairs cabin 392.38 329.61 307.62 296.19 320.65 332.64
terrace(story 12) 3180.73 2489.82 2247.60 2172.36 2479.31 2378.35
story 11 7597.90 5664.65 5598.86 5017.00 6098.50 5512.33
Story10 13388.15 9488.38 10141.01 8413.96 10950.12 9285.21
Story9 20318.92 13709.30 15672.36 12065.19 16825.44 13390.60
Story8 28189.55 18164.89 22018.50 15795.71 23548.89 17663.58
Story7 36835.76 22776.98 29019.56 19531.91 30948.05 22036.21
Story6 46081.63 27540.98 36527.01 23287.11 38869.65 26509.27
Story5 55639.82 32510.09 44411.37 27145.14 47180.13 31139.63
Story4 65533.21 37693.79 52564.44 31231.79 55768.74 36021.14
Story3 75655.46 43197.79 60894.58 35681.35 64542.39 41259.72
Story2 85912.57 49111.35 69328.81 40593.62 73424.80 46937.00
Story1 96234.91 55467.28 77813.40 46002.64 82359.84 53079.73
base 109538.79 604230.96 88757.68 53683.89 93883.42 61659.78
120000
Storey moment (KN-m)
100000
80000
rcc static
60000
40000 rcc dynamic
20000 steel static

0 steel dynamic
composite static
composite dynamic
Storey No.
Figure 6.6 Storey moment for static and dynamic analysis in y direction

6.1.3 Storey displacement
Storey drift is calculated from the Storey displacement; more Storey displacement
indicates less stiffness of structure.
Table 6.9 Maximum Storey displacement in x direction (mm)
STOREY DISPLACEMENT ( in x direction) (mm)

STRUCTURE RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
Stairs cabin 21.85 15.17 28.08 19.14 25.54 18.52
terrace(story 12) 20.08 14.06 25.63 17.82 23.42 17.08
story 11 18.30 12.96 23.15 16.24 21.29 15.66
Story10 16.46 11.79 20.64 14.62 19.11 14.18
Story9 14.59 10.59 18.13 12.98 16.89 12.68
Story8 12.70 9.35 15.64 11.33 14.67 11.15
Story7 10.84 8.11 13.22 9.73 12.47 9.63
Story6 9.01 6.86 10.86 8.15 10.31 8.11
Story5 7.27 5.64 8.64 6.62 8.25 6.63
Story4 5.62 4.46 6.57 5.17 6.31 5.20
Story3 4.12 3.35 4.72 3.82 4.55 3.89
Story2 2.76 2.31 3.11 2.59 2.99 2.68
Story1 1.59 1.37 1.78 1.52 1.71 1.60
base 0.64 0.56 0.75 0.65 0.71 0.70
30
Storey displacement (mm)
25
RCC
20
15 STEEL
10
5 COMPOSIT
E
0
Storey no.
Figure 6.7 Maximum storey displacement for static analysis in x direction

Table 6.10 Comparison of Storey displacement for static and dynamic analysis

Stairs cabin 30.57 31.84 27.49
terrace(story 12) 29.98 30.47 27.07
story 11 29.18 29.85 26.44
Story10 28.37 29.17 25.79
Story9 27.42 28.41 24.93
Story8 26.38 27.56 23.99
Story7 25.18 26.4 22.77
Story6 23.86 24.95 21.34
Story5 22.42 23.38 19.64
Story4 20.64 21.31 17.59
Story3 18.68 19.07 14.51
Story2 16.30 16.72 10.37
Story1 13.83 14.61 06.43
base 12.50 13.33 01.41
Table 6.11 Comparison of Storey displacement with respect to RCC building in x

direction (in %)

Storey
Stairs cabin -28.51 -16.88 -26.17 -22.08
terrace(story 12) -27.64 -16.63 -26.74 -21.48
story 11 -26.50 -16.33 -25.31 -20.83
Story10 -25.39 -16.09 -24.00 -20.27
Story9 -24.26 -15.76 -22.56 -19.74
Story8 -23.15 -15.51 -21.18 -19.25
Story7 -21.95 -15.04 -19.98 -18.74
Story6 -20.53 -14.43 -18.80 -18.22
Story5 -18.84 -13.48 -17.38 -17.55
Story4 -16.90 -12.27 -15.92 -16.59
Story3 -14.56 -10.43 -14.03 -16.12
Story2 -12.68 -08.33 -12.12 -16.01
Story1 -11.95 -07.55 -10.95 -16.78
base -17.18 -10.93 -16.07 -25.00

Table 6.12 Maximum Storey displacement in y direction (mm)
STOREY DISPLACEMENT ( in y direction) (mm)

Stairs cabin 6.40 15.17 8.61 19.14 5.98 18.52
terrace(story 12) 6.15 14.06 8.19 17.82 5.77 17.08
story 11 5.90 12.96 7.81 16.24 5.56 15.66
Story10 5.57 11.79 7.31 14.62 5.28 14.18
Story9 5.16 10.59 6.70 12.98 4.92 12.68
Story8 4.65 9.35 6.01 11.33 4.49 11.15
Story7 4.11 8.11 5.29 9.73 4.01 9.63
Story6 3.52 6.86 4.53 8.15 3.48 8.11
Story5 2.89 5.64 3.73 6.62 2.91 6.63
Story4 2.28 4.46 2.93 5.17 2.32 5.20
Story3 1.69 3.35 2.15 3.82 1.79 3.89
Story2 1.13 2.31 1.40 2.59 1.27 2.68
Story1 0.64 1.37 0.74 1.52 0.76 1.60
base 0.25 0.56 0.24 0.65 0.32 0.70
25
Storey Displacement (mm)
20
15
10 RCC
5 steel
0 composite
Storey No.
Figure 6.8 Maximum storey displacement for dynamic analysis in y direction

6.1.4 Storey stiffness
Stiffness is calculated by assuming that supports are fixed and load is applied at the
floor level. Horizontal displacement is measured at floor level and lateral stiffness is
calculated by dividing horizontal deflection to lateral load. In other words stiffness is
the force needed to cause unit displacement and is given by slop of force displacement
relationship.
Strength is a maximum force that a system can take.
Table 6.13 Storey stiffness in x direction (KN/m)
STOREY STIFNESS ( in x direction) (KN/m)

Structure RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
Storey static dynamic static dynamic static dynamic
Stairs cabin 57026.35 57035.07 32045.87 32215.24 40257.93 40257.93
terrace 404793.98 404860.81 202398.79 203436.71 273499.17 273499.17
story 11 603637.43 603732.15 337542.08 339240.10 437818.30 437818.30
Story10 762108.80 762218.23 448610.01 450858.35 569183.21 569183.21
Story9 874930.71 875053.54 540755.95 543506.90 675554.53 675554.53
Story8 999307.71 999423.01 632188.84 635521.28 768586.18 768586.18
Story7 1098844.87 1099030.38 708774.06 712732.80 853813.03 853813.03
Story6 1207611.71 1205956.66 789278.17 794070.42 940535.62 940535.62
Story5 1308442.92 1306751.56 880601.37 886582.91 1035197.46 1035197.46
Story4 1502622.93 1504725.91 997052.44 1004902.01 1183466.73 1183466.73
Story3 1707206.49 1711256.69 1149413.21 1160459.63 1345791.22 1345791.22
Story2 1998789.58 2003993.38 1380335.65 1400687.11 1598299.95 1598299.95
Story1 2403011.14 2406157.39 1835106.32 1832639.30 2018200.54 2018200.54
base 3710419.25 3689564.66 2258741.87 2732142.07 2850025.34 2850025.34

4000000
Storey Stifness (KN/m)

3000000
2000000
1000000
RCC
0
STEEL
Composite
Storey No.
Figure 6.9 Storey stiffness for static analysis
4000000
Storey Stifness (KN/m)
3000000 RCC Static

2000000
RCC Dynamic
1000000
0 Steel Static
Steel Dynamic
Composite Static
Composite Dynamic
Storey No.
Figure 6.10 Storey stiffness for static and dynamic analysis
Table 6.14 Comparison of s. stiffness with respect to RCC in x direction (in %)

Storey
Stairs cabin 43.81 29.40 43.52 29.42
terrace(story 12) 49.99 32.43 49.75 32.45
story 11 44.08 27,47 43.81 27.48
Story10 41.14 25.31 40.85 25.33
Story9 38.19 22.79 37.89 22.80
Story8 36.73 23.08 36.41 23.09
Story7 35.49 22.30 35.15 22.31
Story6 34.64 22.11 34.15 22.01
Story5 32.69 20.88 32.15 20.78
Story4 33.65 21.24 33.22 21.35
Story3 32.67 21.20 32.19 21.36
Story2 30.94 20.04 30.11 20.24
Story1 23.63 16.01 23.84 16.12
base 39.12 23.19 25.95 22.75
(Refer table 6.13)

Table 6.15 Storey stiffness in y direction (KN/m)
STOREY STIFNESS ( in y direction) (KN/m)

Stairs cabin 61587.26 61624.45 22494.40 22646.90 31376.71 31376.71
terrace(story 12) 433620.27 433877.62 141495.66 142450.63 209441.67 209441.67
story 11 661484.41 661575.27 240066.38 241694.99 340390.02 340390.02
Story10 842950.02 843464.21 321561.38 323788.56 444059.40 444059.40
Story9 980956.41 981249.58 389816.23 392628.68 526785.64 526785.64
Story8 1112418.80 1113197.81 452916.92 456400.92 597838.27 597838.27
Story7 1240677.54 1241632.94 510153.70 514444.50 662380.77 662380.77
Story6 1384814.43 1386027.36 569953.22 575351.45 728475.54 728475.54
Story5 1543643.08 1545083.22 639016.02 646065.53 804120.59 804120.59
Story4 1782375.40 1784544.23 728838.98 738575.90 909592.91 909592.91
Story3 2074258.65 2075755.47 855933.84 870660.94 1053731.08 1053731.08
Story2 2565782.72 2561881.78 1067565.58 1091469.41 1296787.09 1296787.09
Story1 3418918.97 3426365.55 1679793.40 1554800.25 1857052.83 1857052.83
base 5652906.98 5676076.45 1852408.87 2953635.10 2942885.44 2942885.44
6000000
Storey Stiffness (KN/m)
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000 rcc
1000000 steel
0 composite
Storey No.
Figure 6.11 Storey stiffness for static and dy. analysis in y direction

6.2 Time Period, Frequency and Storey Drift
6.2.1 Time period
Time period play role in selecting the method of analysis. For flexible structure whose
time period is more response is governed by the ground velocity. The stiffer structure
has lesser natural period and their response is governed by the ground acceleration; most
buildings fall in this category. The flexible structures have larger natural period and
their response is governed by the ground displacement, for example, large span bridges.
Table 6.16 Time period (sec)
TIME PERIOD (in SEC.) AND FREQUENCY

MODE RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
Time Frequency Time Frequency Time Frequency
period period period
1 2.22 0.45 2.57 0.39 2.25 0.44
2 1.37 0.73 1.83 0.55 1.64 0.61
3 1.25 0.80 1.58 0.63 1.46 0.68
4 0.68 1.47 0.83 1.20 0.74 1.35
5 0.37 2.71 0.44 2.27 0.42 2.41
6 0.37 2.73 0.41 2.47 0.39 2.57
7 0.30 3.32 0.39 2.56 0.38 2.64
8 0.23 4.31 0.28 3.58 0.28 3.64
9 0.18 5.46 0.20 5.01 0.20 4.90
10 0.17 6.06 0.19 5.38 0.18 5.43
11 0.14 7.12 0.17 5.96 0.17 5.98
12 0.13 7.96 0.15 6.55 0.16 6.24

9
8
7
6
frequency
5
RCC
4
Steel
3
Composite
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
mode
(A)
2.5
Time period (sec.)
1.5 RCC
Steel
1
Composite
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
modes
(B)
Figure 6.12 Time period and frequency for different modes

6.2.2 Storey drift
Storey drift is the drift of one level of a multi-storey building relative to the level below.
Inter-story drift is the difference between the roof and floor displacements of any
given storey as the building sways during the earthquake, normalized by the
storey height. Drift is defined as the lateral displacement. For example, for a 10-foot
high story, an inter story drift of 0.10 indicates that the roof is displaced one foot in
relation to the floor below.
Storey drift is directly related to the stiffness of the structure. The higher the stiffness
lowers the drift and higher the lateral loads on structure.
The greater the drift, the greater the likelihood of damage.
Peak inter-story drift values....

1. 0.06 indicate severe damage.
2. > 0.025 indicate that the damage could be serious enough to pose a
serious threat to human safety.
3. > 0.10 indicate probable building collapse.
Table 6.17 Storey drift in x direction (mm)
STOREY DRIFT ( in X direction) (mm)

Stairs cabin 1.966 1.13 2.728 1.622 2.276 1.473
terrace(story 12) 1.968 1.139 2.725 1.628 2.255 1.468
story 11 2.091 1.212 2.822 1.691 2.362 1.54
Story10 2.171 1.256 2.878 1.72 2.435 1.584
Story9 2.263 1.303 2.908 1.727 2.485 1.607
Story8 2.25 1.29 2.853 1.683 2.499 1.607
Story7 2.248 1.285 2.807 1.647 2.476 1.586
Story6 2.188 1.254 2.701 1.583 2.406 1.541
Story5 2.087 1.205 2.541 1.496 2.294 1.478
Story4 1.881 1.102 2.318 1.382 2.073 1.354
Story3 1.694 1.015 2.051 1.249 1.863 1.243
Story2 1.466 0.907 1.72 1.083 1.588 1.094
Story1 1.227 0.787 1.323 0.875 1.265 0.908
base 0.797 0.568 0.89 0.653 0.899 0.723

3.5
3
Storey drift (mm)

2.5
2
1.5 RCC
1 STEEL
0.5 COMPOSITE
0
Storey No.
Figure 6.13 Storey drift for static analysis in x direction
2
1.8
1.6
Storey drift (mm)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8 RCC
0.6
Steel
0.4
0.2 Composite
0
Storey No.
Figure 6.14 Storey drift for dynamic analysis in x direction

Table 6.18 Comparison of Storey drift for static and dynamic analysis

Stairs cabin 42.52 40.54 35.28
terrace(story 12) 42.12 40.26 34.90
story 11 42.04 40.08 34.80
Story10 42.15 40.24 34.95
Story9 42.42 40.61 35.33
Story8 42.67 41.01 35.69
Story7 42.84 41.33 35.95
Story6 42.69 41.39 35.95
Story5 42.26 41.12 35.57
Story4 41.41 40.38 34.68
Story3 40.08 39.10 33.28
Story2 38.13 37.03 31.11
Story1 35.86 33.86 28.22
base 28.73 26.63 19.57
(Refer table 6.16)
Table 6.19 Comparison of Storey drift with respect to RCC building in x

direction (in %)

Storey
Stairs cabin -38.75 -15.77 -43.54 -30.35
terrace(story 12) -38.47 -14.58 -42.93 -28.89
story 11 -34.96 -12.96 -39.52 -27.06
Story10 -32.57 -12.16 -36.94 -26.11
Story9 -28.50 -09.81 -32.54 -23.33
Story8 -26.80 -11.06 -30.57 -24.57
Story7 -24.87 -10.14 -28.17 -23.42
Story6 -23.45 -09.96 -26.24 -22.88
Story5 -21.75 -09.91 -24.15 -22.66
Story4 -23.23 -10.20 -25.41 -22.87
Story3 -21.07 -09.98 -23.05 -22.46
Story2 -17.33 -08.32 -19.40 -20.61
Story1 -07.82 -03.09 -11.18 -15.37
base -11.67 -12.78 -14.96 -27.28

Table 6.20 Storey drift in y direction (mm)
STOREY DRIFT ( in Y direction) (mm)

Stairs cabin 1.82 1.12 3.88 1.99 2.92 1.69
terrace(story 12) 1.84 1.14 3.89 1.99 2.95 1.70
story 11 1.91 1.18 3.96 2.03 3.04 1.75
Story10 1.96 1.21 4.01 2.04 3.12 1.79
Story9 2.02 1.24 4.03 2.03 3.19 1.81
Story8 2.02 1.24 3.97 1.99 3.21 1.82
Story7 1.99 1.22 3.89 1.94 3.19 1.80
Story6 1.91 1.17 3.73 1.86 3.11 1.75
Story5 1.77 1.10 3.49 1.75 2.95 1.68
Story4 1.59 0.98 3.15 1.60 2.70 1.55
Story3 1.39 0.86 2.73 1.41 2.38 1.40
Story2 1.14 0.71 2.21 1.17 1.96 1.18
Story1 0.86 0.57 1.56 0.85 1.38 0.86
base 0.52 0.37 0.82 0.48 0.87 0.56
4.5
4
Storey Drift (mm)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5 RCC
1 Steel
0.5
0 Composite
Storey No.
Figure 6.15 Storey drift for static analysis in y direction

4.5
4
Storey Drift (mm)

3.5
3 RCC static
2.5
2 RCC dynamic
1.5
1 Steel static
0.5
Steel dynamic
0
Composite static
Composite dynamic
Storey No.
Figure 6.16 Storey drift for static and dynamic analysis in y direction
6.3 Peck ground acceleration (PGA)
Peck ground acceleration (PGA) is the maximum acceleration of the ground in the given
direction of the ground shaking. Means acceleration of mass relative to the base can be
determined by PGA.
Table 6.21 Response Spectrum Accelerations
Response spectrum accelerations ( in x direction) (m/sec²)

spectrum mode period acceleration period acceleration period acceleration
RSAX 1 2.22 0.128 2.57 0.119 2.25 0.114
RSAX 2 1.37 0.206 1.83 0.166 1.64 0.196
RSAX 3 1.25 0.226 1.58 0.192 1.46 0.219
RSAX 4 0.68 0.432 0.83 0.368 0.74 0.446
RSAX 5 0.37 0.520 0.44 0.560 0.42 0.589
RSAX 6 0.37 0.520 0.41 0.560 0.39 0.589
RSAX 7 0.30 0.520 0.39 0.560 0.38 0.589
RSAX 8 0.23 0.520 0.28 0.560 0.28 0.589
RSAX 9 0.18 0.520 0.20 0.560 0.20 0.589
RSAX 10 0.17 0.520 0.19 0.560 0.18 0.589

RSAX 11 0.14 0.520 0.17 0.560 0.17 0.589

RSAX 12 0.13 0.520 0.15 0.560 0.16 0.589
RSAX 13 0.12 0.520 0.12 0.560 0.16 0.589
RSAX 14 0.10 0.512 0.12 0.560 0.13 0.589
RSAX 15 0.09 0.485 0.10 0.560 0.11 0.589
RSAX 16 0.09 0.473 0.09 0.552 0.11 0.589
RSAX 17 0.08 0.463 0.09 0.532 0.10 0.582
RSAX 18 0.07 0.425 0.08 0.514 0.10 0.570
6.3 Cost analysis
Costing of each building is based on material only. In case of steel and composite
building steel required for joints and connection is added in structural steel.
RCC BUILDING
Concrete 4700 m3 4200 ` per m3 19740000 `
reinforcement 1018000 kg 40 ` per kg 40720000 `
Total 60460000 `
STEEL BUILDING
Concrete 1600 m3 4200 ` per m3 6720000`
Structural steel 1028000 kg 40 ` per kg 41120000 `
Total 51732000 `
COMPOSITE BUILDING
Concrete 1245 m3 4200 ` per m3 5229000 `
Structural steel 1010200 kg 40 ` per kg 40408000 `
Total 50153000 `

7. Conclusion and future scope
7.1 Concluding remarks
The static and dynamic analysis of steel, RCC and composite building shows that
dynamic analysis not only gives better understanding of the structural behavior but also
following conclusion remarks can be made.
1) RCC building has maximum seismic weight. Steel and composite building has 12.70
% and 11.21% lesser seismic weight than RCC.
2) Composite building has average 14% and steel building has average 18% lower
Storey shear than RCC building.
3) As RCC structure has less flexible structure, RCC structure has maximum Storey
stiffness. The Storey stiffness of steel building is 26% and composite building is 23%
less as compare to RCC building.
4) Higher the stiffness; displacement will less. Steel building has a highest Storey
displacement. Steel building has 26% and composite building has 22% more Storey
displacement then the RCC building.
5) Storey drift is directly related to the stiffness of the structure. The higher the stiffness;
lowers the drift. With the view to this, steel building has maximum storey drift. As
compare to RCC building; steel building has 43.54% and 30.35% more storey drift.
6) As far as RCC building is considered, it is relatively stiff and it has less time period.
So, RCC building has minimum time period as compare to other two type buildings.
Steel building has 15.77% and composite building has 2% more time period.
7) Modal participation factor shows that mass is contributing majorly in first four mode
higher mode contribution is negligible in structure.
8) Steel building has higher peck ground acceleration (PGA) than composite.
9) From the element sections we can conclude that composite structure not only gives
reduced dead weight but also gives reduced dimension. This allows more working
space and clear headroom.
10) When dynamic analysis is performed average Storey shear is decreased by 33%,
27% and 23% for RCC, steel and composite building respectively

Conclusion and future scope
11) When dynamic analysis is done average Storey displacement is decreased by

26.91%, 27.94%, and 24.08% for RCC, steel and composite building respectively.
12) When dynamic analysis is done average storey drift is decreased by 38%.
13) Cost of composite building is 17.05% and 3.05% lesser than the RCC and steel
building respectively.
Table 7.1 comparison of building
PARAMETERS RCC STEEL COMPOSITE

Seismic weight maximum Minimum In-between
Storey shear maximum Minimum In-between
Storey displacement Minimum maximum In-between
Storey drift Minimum maximum In-between
Time period Minimum maximum In-between
Storey stiffness maximum Minimum In-between
Storey stiffness maximum Minimum In-between
Dynamic analysis reduces Storey shear, Storey displacement, Storey drift etc; this
shows that dynamic analysis gives improved estimate of forces and therefore analysis
of building become more accurate as well as economical.
For good seismic performance a building should have adequate lateral stiffness. Low
lateral stiffness leads to large deformation and strains, damage to nonstructural
component, discomfort to occupant.
Stiff structure though attracts the more seismic force but performed better during past
earthquake as per is: 1893(part-I).
The cross section area of element and amount of steel is reduced in composite structure.
And therefore foundation cost will reduce. And therefore composite structure is one of
the best options for construction of multistory building as well as for earthquake
resistance structure.

Conclusion and future scope
7.2 Future scope
 Nonlinear analysis by push over.

 Effect of shear wall on seismic performance of building.
 Dynamic Nonlinear analysis by time history method.
 Parametric study of models by varying height of building, number of bays of
buildings etc.
 Performance-based or capacity based design of structure.
 Continue to innovate new system
 FEM analysis to understand beam-column junction behaviour under earthquake
for RCC, steel and composite building.
 Evaluate and comparison of the life cycle cost of all three type of structures.

8. References
1 Abhishek Sanjay Mahajan & Laxman G. Kalurkar, “performance analysis of RCC

and steel concrete composite structure under seismic effect”, International Journal
of Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume 5 Issue 4 Apr-2016.
2 Anamika Tedia & Dr. Savita Maru, “Cost, Analysis and Design of Steel-Concrete
Composite Structure RCC Structure”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering, Volume 11, Issue 1, Jan. 2014.
3 Aniket Sijaria, Prof Anubhav Rai & Prof Y.K. Bajpai, “Cost comparison between
r.c.c. beam& steel composite beam structure of g+5 storeyed building the overall
plan dimension of the building is 56.3 m x 31.94m”, International Journal of
Computational Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2014.
4 A. Sattainathan Sharma, R. Anjughap Priya, R. Thirugnanam and P. Rathna Priya,
“Comparative Study on Multi-Storey Structure of R.C.C and Composite Material”,
Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Volume 9, Issue 2, January 2016.
5 Bhavin H. Zaveri , Bhargav K.Panchotiya & Smit U. Patel, “parametric study of
rcc, steel and composite structures under seismic loading”, International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology ,Volume 7, Issue 4, July-August 2016.
6 Bhavin H. Zaveri, Jasmin A. Gadhiya & Hitesh K. Dhameliya, “A Review on the
Comparative Study of Steel, RCC and Composite Building”, International Journal
of Innovative Research in Science Engineering and Tech., Vol. 5, Issue 1, January
2016.
7 Deepak M Jirage, Prof. V.G. Sayagavi & Prof. N.G. Gore, “Comparative Study of
RCC and Composite Multi-storeyed Building”, International Journal of Scientific
Engineering and Applied Science, Volume 1, Issue 6, September 2015.
8 D. R. Panchal & P. M. Marathe, “comparative study of RCC, steel and composite ( G
+30 Storey) building”, institute of technology, Nirma University, 08-10 December
2011.
9 Jeeva K, & Prof. G. Augustine Maniraj Pandian, “Study of Behavior of Steel and
Steel-Concrete Composite Multi-Storey Moment Resistant Frames Using Pushover
Analysis”, International Conference on Engineering Trends and Science &
Humanities page no. 17 to 21, 2015

References
10 Mahesh Suresh Kumawat & L G Kalurkar, “analysis and design of multistory

building using composite structure”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology,
Volume 3, issue No. 2, May 2014.
11 Murtuza S. Aainawala, “ behavior of g+15 RCC and composite structure”,
International Journal of Innovative and Emerging Research in Eng., Volume 3, Sp.
Issue 1, 2016.
12 Nitish A. Mohite, P. K. Joshi & Dr. W. N. Deulkar, “Comparative Analysis of RCC
and Steel-Concrete-Composite (B+G+ 11 Storey) Building”, International Journal
of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 5, Issue 10, October 2015.
13 Nitin m. Warade & P. J. Salunke, “comparative study on analysis and design of
composite structure”, International Journal of Advance Research in Science and
Engineering, Volume No.2, Issue No.12, December, 2013.
14 Prasad Kolhe & Prof. Rakesh Shinde, “Time History Analysis of Steel and
Composite Frame Structure”, International Journal of Research in Engineering &
Advanced Technology, Volume 3, Issue 2, April-May, 2015.
15 Rajendra R. Bhoir & Prof. Mahesh Bagade, “Analysis and Design of Composite
Structure & Its Comparison With RCC Structure”, International Journal of
Advanced Research in Science Engineering and Technology, Volume 3, Issue 7,
July 2016.
16 Renavikar Aniket V. & Suryawanshi Yogesh, “Comparative Study on Analysis and
Cost of R.C.C. and Steel-Composite Structure”, International Journal of Science
and Research, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2016.
17 S. S. Charantimath, Prof. Swapnil B.Cholekar & Manjunath M. Birje,
“Comparative Study on Structural Parameter of R.C.C and Composite Building”,
Civil and Environmental Research, Volume 6, Issue No.6, 2014.
18 Shweta A. Wagh & Dr. U. P. Waghe, “Comparative Study of R.C.C and Steel
Concrete Composite Structures”, Int. Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp.369-376 April 2014.
19 Umesh P. Patil & Suryanarayana M, “ analysis of g+15 RCC and composite
structure having a soft Storey at ground level by response spectrum and equivalent
static methods using etabs 2013”, International Research Journal of Engineering
and Technology, Volume 2, Issue 3, June-2015.

References
20 Vaishali Ambe & Dr. Savita Maru, “Life cycle cost analysis of Steel- Concrete
Composite Structure”, International Journal of Emerging Technology and
Advanced Engineering, Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2015.
21 Varsha Patil & Shilpa Kewate, “Comparative Study on Dynamic Analysis of
Composite, RCC & Steel Structure”, International Journal of Engineering
Technology, Management and Applied Sciences Volume 3, Issue 8, August 2015.
CODES:-
1. Euro code 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings.
2. IS 456: 2000, “Code for practice of plain and reinforced concrete code of
practice, Bureau of Indian Standards”, New Delhi.
3. IS 1893: 2002, “Code for earthquake resistant design of structures- general
provisions for buildings, Part I, Bureau of Indian Standards”, New Delhi.
4. IS 800: 2007, “Indian Standard Code of practice for General Construction of
Steel in India, Bureau of Indian Standards”, New Delhi.
5. IS 11384:1985, “Code of Practice for Design of Composite Structure, Bureau of
Indian Standards”, New Delhi.
BOOKS:-
1. “Composite structure of steel and concrete” second edition. by r. p. Johnson

2. “Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings: Steel and Composite
Construction”. By Bungale S. Taranath
WEBSITES:-
1. www.sciencedirect.com
2. www.insdag.co.in
3. www. Nicee.org
4. www.svnit.ac.in
5. www.iitk.ac.in
6. www.elsevier.com

References
7. www.google.co.in
8. www.scribd.com
9. www.rapidshare.com
10. www.civilknowhow.com
11. www. Comp-engineering.com
12. www.fileforbrain.com
13. www.rapidshare.com
14. www.icivilengineer.com

U Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

U Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A

“Comparative Analytical Study of Seismic Response and

VARIYAVWALA JIGAR PRAMODKUMAR

APPLIED MECHANICS DEPARTMENT

S. V. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

SURAT – 395007, GUJARAT (INDIA)

S. V. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

SURAT, GUJARAT (INDIA)

work entitled “Comparative Analytical Study of Seismic Response and

Prof. A. J. Shah Dr. Y. D. Patil Dr. C. H. Solanki

Research Supervisor PG. In charge Head of Department

Applied mechanics Applied mechanics Applied mechanics

S. V. N. I. T., Surat. S. V. N. I. T., Surat. S. V. N. I. T., Surat.

S. V. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

SURAT, GUJARAT (INDIA)

This is to certify that Mr. Va riya vwa la J ig ar

successfully completed the seminar work entitled “Comparative

Examiner Examiner Chairmen

S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page i

It gives me immense pleasure to express my sense of sincere gratitude towards respected

Variyavwala Jigar Pramodkumar

S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page ii

Index ............................................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vi

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. viii

1.1 General .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Indian Perspective ........................................................................................ 1

1.3 Structural modeling ..................................................................................... 3

1.4 Structural method of analysis ..................................................................... 3

1.5 An overview of composite construction ..................................................... 6

1.6 Objective of the study .................................................................................. 6

2. Seismic analysis methods and concept ............................................................... 7

2.2 Analysis methods ................................................................................................ 9

2.3 The time-history method ................................................................................. 17

2.4 The response spectrum method ...................................................................... 18

3. Aspect of composite structure ........................................................................... 21

3.1 General .............................................................................................................. 21

3.2 Composite Structures ...................................................................................... 22

S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page iii

3.3 Components of composite structure ............................................................... 24

4.1 Previous History of Composite Construction ................................................ 39

4.2 Studies on Composite Construction ............................................................... 40

5. Problem formulation & software implementation .......................................... 50

5.1 Problem statement ........................................................................................... 50

5.2 About Etabs ...................................................................................................... 56

5.3 Software validation .......................................................................................... 57

5.4 Modeling of building using Etabs ................................................................... 59

5.5 Response spectrum analysis in Etabs ............................................................. 63

6. Analysis, Result and Discussion ........................................................................ 65

S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page iv

6.2 Time Period, Frequency and Storey Drift ..................................................... 80

6.3 Peck ground acceleration (PGA) .................................................................... 86

6.3 Cost analysis ..................................................................................................... 87

7. Conclusion and future scope ............................................................................. 88

7.1 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................ 88

7.2 Future scope ..................................................................................................... 90

S.V. National institute of technology, Surat Page v

2.1 Static application of load........................................................................................ 10

3.3.1 Slip and slip strain ............................................................................................... 24

3.3.2 Uplift behaviour .................................................................................................. 25

3.3.3 Typical shear connectors as per IS: 11384 ......................................................... 26

3.4 Typical load slip curve ........................................................................................... 27