Seismic performance of reinforced concrete

building with flat slab

Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2158, 020003 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127127
Published Online: 25 September 2019

Nipan Bhandar Kayastha and Rama Debbarma

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Analysis of seismic separation gap between two adjacent reinforced concrete buildings
AIP Conference Proceedings 2158, 020002 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127126

Effect of irregular plan on seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete buildings

AIP Conference Proceedings 2158, 020012 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127136

Seismic analysis of a RC building on sloping ground with shear wall at different positions
AIP Conference Proceedings 2158, 020030 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127154

AIP Conference Proceedings 2158, 020003 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127127 2158, 020003

© 2019 Author(s).
Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Building with
Flat Slab
Nipan Bhandar Kayastha1, a)and Rama Debbarma2, b)
1
Post-Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Agartala,
Tripura 799046, India
2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Agartala, Tripura
799046, India
a)
Corresponding E-mail: nipankayastha199@gmail.com
b)
ramadebbarma@gmail.com

Abstract.Flat slab building has many advantages over conventional RC frame building in terms of architectural
flexibility, use of space, easier formwork and shorter construction time. But, flat slab buildings are significantly more
flexible than the conventional RC frame building, thus becoming more vulnerable to seismic loading. Therefore, in
order to improve the performance, flat slab are usually provided with drop and column head or capital. In this paper, a
(G+3) multi-storied building having flat slab with drop, flat slab with drop and column head and conventional slab
systems with brick masonry infill wall has been analyzed separately for seismic zone V with soft soil by using SAP
2000 software and to improve the performance of building having flat slabs under seismic loading, provision of a
portion of shear wall is also proposed in the present work. Linear dynamic response spectrum analysis is performed on
the structures to get the seismic behavior and compare the parameters like storey displacement, storey drift, base shear
and time period.

INTRODUCTION
The common practice of design and construction is to support the slabs by beams and support the beams by
columns. This is called as conventional beam-slab construction system. Flat slab structures are one of the most
popular floor systems in commercial buildings, residential buildings and many other structures like in warehouses,
offices and public halls in which beams are avoided and slabs are directly supported by columns and force is
transferred from slab to the column directly and these types of constructions are also favored by both architecture
and client. To support heavy loads, the thickness of slab near the support is increased and these are called drops
and columns are generally provided with enlarged heads called column heads or capitals. This increasing
thickness of flat slab in the region supporting columns provides adequate strength in shear and reduces negative
bending moment at the support. Flat slab structure is preferred over conventional structure in construction due to
their advantages in reducing storey height and construction period as compared with conventional structure
leading to reduction of construction costs. Because of absence of beam, flat slab building structures are more
significantly flexible than conventional concrete structures, thus becoming more vulnerable to seismic loading.
Thus the seismic analysis of these structures is necessary to know the vulnerability of these structures to seismic
loading.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Thakkar et al. (2017) found that conventional building has superior performance in earthquake against flat slab
with drop and flat slab without drop. They also suggested that flat slab is provided with drop and column head to
reduce large shear force and negative bending moment and flat is also provided with shear wall or bracing or
damper as lateral load resisting system to reduce seismic effect. Gowda and Tata (2016) studied the seismic
behavior of flat slab with drop and flat slab without drop building and they found that building consisting of flat
slab with drop shows better seismic performance. Basavaraj and Rashmi (2015) investigated the seismic

Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Materials and Structures for Civil Infrastructures (SMSCI2019)
AIP Conf. Proc. 2158, 020003-1–020003-7; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127127
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1903-2/$30.00

020003-1
vulnerability of purely frame and purely flat slab models. They further strengthened the flat slab models by
perimeter beam, infill walls, shear walls and increasing the cross sectional area of columns. From the results, they
found that the flat slab building model strengthened by perimeter beams and shear walls shows better seismic
performance. Reddy and Ghorpade (2014) made an attempt to assess the comparative seismic analysis of
conventional, flat slab with drop and without drop framed structures with and without masonry infill wall. Sanjay
et al.(2014) compared the seismic behavior of multi-storey buildings having flat slabs with drops and without drop
for different types of zones and different types of soil conditions. Desai and Cholekar (2013) studied the dynamic
response of flat slab with drop and without drop and conventional RC framed structures for different height with
and without masonry infill wall.

DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING
A four storey (G+3) residential building has been analyzed. All the details related to structure are provided
here.

Structural Elements

x Beam: (230×450) mm
x Column: (450×450) mm
x Drop : (1500×1500) mm
x Thickness of slab:125 mm
x Thickness of drop : 200mm
x Column head: 600mm in dia.
x Thickness of column head: 500mm
x Wall thickness : 230 mm for exterior and 115mm for interior wall
x Parapet wall: 230mm thickness and 1.2m in height
x Thickness of shear wall: 200mm
x No. of stories : (G+3)
x Floor height : 3.3m
x Support condition: Fixed

Material Properties

x Unit weight of concrete: 25 kN/m3

x Unit weight of Infill walls: 20 kN/m3
x Characteristic Strength of concrete: 20 MPa
x Characteristic Strength of steel: 415 MPa
x Compressive strength of masonry walls: 4.95 MPa
x Modulus of elasticity of masonry walls: 2720.27 MPa.

Seismic Design Data

x Seismic zone: V
x Zone factor (Z): 0.36
x Soil type: Soft soil
x Damping ratio: 5%.
x Frame Type: Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)
x Response reduction factor (R): 5.0
x Importance factor (I): 1.0

020003-2
 Loads Considered
The types of load considered during the design are-
x Dead loads of beams, columns, slab.
x Wall weight.
x Live load of 3 kN/m2 at floors and 1.5 kN/m2 at roof.
x Mass source: (1DL + 1WL + 0.25LL).

Properties of Infill wall

Infill properties:-
Thickness of infill wall (t) =0.23m
Height of infill wall (h) = (3.3-0.45) m = 2.85m
Length of infill wall (L) = (3-0.45) m = 2.55m
Modulus of elasticity of masonry infill wall (‫ = ) ݉ܧ‬2720.27 N/mm2
Moment of inertia of column (Ic) = 3.4172×10-3 m4
Elastic modulus of frame material (‫ = ) ݂ܧ‬27386.128 N/mm2
Length of equivalent strut (‫  ݏ݀ܮ‬¥K2+L2) = 3.82 m
݄ 2.85
ș tanെ1 = tanെ1 = 48.18
‫ܮ‬ 2.55
4 ‫ ݐ ݉ܧ‬sin 2ߠ
ߙ݄ = h ට = 2.4902
4‫݄ ܿܫ ݂ܧ‬
ܹ݀‫= ݏ‬ 0.175 ߙ݄െ0.4 ‫ݏ݀ܮ‬ = 0.464 m (As per IS 1893 (part I)-2016, cl. 7.9.2.2)

Properties of Shear wall

Thickness of shear wall = 200 mm
Grade of concrete = M20
Vertical reinforcement = (0.0012×3000×200) = 720 mm2
Provide 5 no of 10 mm dia. bar in 2 layers @ 450 mm c/c
Horizontal reinforcement = (0.002×3300×200) = 1320 mm2
Provide 6 no of 12 mm dia. bar in 2 layers @ 450 mm c/c

Analysis Method
In this paper all the models are analyzed by linear dynamic method which is response spectrum method. RSM
analysis is done and results are compared to study the seismic behavior of the structures. In modal analyses, mode
shapes are generally obtained in normalized form and thus the results of response spectrum method need to be
properly scaled. In the present study, the scaling has been done as per IS1893:2016 guideline.

Models considered for analysis

x Model 1 (M1) - Conventional RC frame building

x Model 2 (M2) - Flat slab building with drop
x Model 3 (M3) - Flat slab building with drop and shear wall
x Model 4 (M4) - Flat slab building with drop and column head
x Model 5 (M5) - Flat slab building with (drop +column head) and shear wall

020003-3
 FIGURE 1.Plan of building FIGURE 2.Conventional RC frame building (M1)

FIGURE 3.Flat slab with drop building (M2) FIGURE 4.Flat slab with drop and shear wall (M3)

FIGURE 5.Flat slab with drop &head (M4) FIGURE 6. Flat slab with (drop + head) & shear wall (M5)

020003-4
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The response parameters like base shear, storey displacement, storey drift and time period of the structures are
obtained from the analysis and discussed in this section.

Base Shear
Base shear due to earthquake force has been obtained by RSM method and balanced by the scale factor as per
IS 1893:2016. Base shear for all the models are shown in Figure7.

FIGURE 7.Design base shear (kN) for different type of buildings

It has been observed that as the base shear is a function of mass and stiffness of the structure, so except
conventional RC frame model, in all other models the base shear has been increased due to the stiffness and mass
provided by the infill walls and shear walls. The design base shear of model M5 is maximum and 3.33% more
than M1 and 4.2% more than M2.

Storey Displacement
The storey displacement obtained by response spectrum analysis for seismic zone V is shown in Figure 8.

FIGURE 8.Storey displacement (m) for different type of buildings

The storey displacement in the direction of force has been recorded maximum for the model M4 due to lesser
stiffness caused by the absence of shear wall in the structure. The top storey displacement of model M4 is 6.36%
more than M2 and 72.06% more than the model M1. On the other hand, storey displacement is less for the model
M3.

020003-5
 Storey Drift
Storey drift is the relative displacement between the adjacent floors. It is calculated as difference between the
adjacent storey displacements per unit storey height in the direction of force. The storey drift of the each storey for
every models are shown in the Figure 9.

FIGURE 9.Storey drift (mm) for different type of buildings for zone V

Storey drift for model M4 is maximum and 66.64% more than M1 and the best drift control is recorded for the
model M3. The storey drifts of all the models has not exceeded the extreme drift criteria of 0.004 times the storey
height which is equal to (0.004×3300) 13.2 mm (as per IS 1893:2016).

Time Period
The maximum time taken (in second) by the structure to complete one cycle of oscillation in its lateral
translational mode of oscillation in the considered direction of earthquake shaking is known as fundamental lateral
translational natural period. Figure10 shows the comparison of time period and different type of building models.

FIGURE10.Time period (sec) for different type of buildings

CONCLUSIONS
In this paper the comparative study of flat slab building and conventional RC frame building under earthquake
has been studied by linear dynamic method (RSM). The stiffness of flat slab building models is abruptly decreased
due to absence of beams and is seriously affected under earthquake loading as its responses are much more than
the RC frame building. So, the flat slab building models are further modified by shear walls in outer periphery of
the building and these models behave excellently under earthquake loading, even better than conventional RC
frame building. The storey displacement and storey drift have been found minimum for flat slab building with
shear walls and also the fundamental natural period of vibration under earthquake is less than w.r.to the other
models. Thus, this paper recommends the use of flat slab system with a portion of shear wall in place of ordinary
RC slab system in the multi-storied buildings.

020003-6
 REFERENCES
1. V. P. Thakkar, Anuj K. Chandiwala and Unnati D. Bhagat. “Comparative Study of Seismic Behavior of
Flat Slab and Conventional RC Framed Structure,” International Journal of Engineering Research and
Technology (IJERT), pp.929, (2017)
2. M.R. Gowda and T. Tata, “Study of Seismic Behaviour of Building with Flat Slab” International
Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 3(9), (2016).
3. H. S. Basavaraj, and B. A. Rashmi, “Seismic Performance Of RC Flat-Slab Building Structural Systems”
International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research, 2, pp. 3069-3084(2015).
4. M.V.K. Reddy and V.G. Ghorpade, “Comparative Study of Seismic Analysis between Conventional and
Flat Slab with Drop and without Drop Framed Structures with Different Masonry Infills,” International
Journal of Engineering & Technology (IJERT), 3(10), (2014).
5. P. N. Sanjay, K. Mahesh Prabhu, and S. S. Umash, “Behavior of flat slab RCC structure under
earthquake loading,” International journal of research in Engineering and Technology (IJERT),3, (2014).
6. Sharad P. Desai, and Swapnil B. Cholekar, “Seismic Behaviour of Flat Slab Framed Structure With And
Without Masonry Infill Wall,” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT),pp.
2278-2181(2013).
7. IS 1893 (Part 1), “Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures Part 1 General
Provisions and Buildings” (Sixth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi (2016).
8. IS 456, “Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete”, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi,
India (2000).

020003-7