Design of RCC Flat Slab Structure Under Earthquake

Loading Using Etabs

engineeringcivil.com/design-of-rcc-flat-slab-structure-under-earthquake-loading-using-etabs.html

March 19, 2017

Email This Post

By
M.RAJAGOPAL REDDY 1, P.RAJESH 2
1- Post Graduate student, Department of civil Engineering,VFSTR university , Vadlamudi.
2-Assistant Professor, Department of civil Engineering, VFSTR university, Vadlamudi.

ABSTRACT
The FLAT SLAB SYSTEM being used in majority of the constructions. It elevates more
clear space in architecting the construction design in easy manner and duration of
construction would be short due to the flat slabs size. Compare to the traditional concrete
construction slab system is more viable due to the fact that it avoids the heavy beams,
which are the big vulnerability in case of earthquakes. Objective of this paper is to
investigate the behavior of flat slab system in few different use cases.

1. Flat slab structure without drop.

2. Flat slab structure with column drop.
3. Flat slab structure with shear wall.
4. Flat slab structure with column drop and shear wall together through response
spectrum method by using ETABS software.

The behavior of flat slab is investigated in terms of the following factors:

1. Frequency
2. Base Shear
3. Storey level accelerations

Also most severe problem in flat slabs as follows:

1. Failure punching shears
2. Shear stresses during ground unbalance
3. Slab column connections to brittle punching shear stresses during earthquakes.

Also this paper investigates about the combinations that can produce less punching shear
at slab column joint.

INTRODUCTION
Flat slab based construction is a developing technology in India. A reinforced concrete
slab supported directly by concrete columns without the use of beams, such slab is called
flat slab. When drop panel have thickened portion of slab around column, that provides
negative reinforcement in the slab column connections and it increase shear strength of
slab. Column heads are flared profile around column and it also provide to increase the
perimeter of critical section for shear.

1/17
Slabs of constant thickness, which do not have, drop panels or column capitals are called
as flat plates. The strength of the flat plate structure is often limited due to punching shear
action around columns. So they are predominantly used in low seismic areas. The
performance of flat slab building under seismic loading is poor as compare to frame
structure due to lack of frame action, which leads to excessive lateral deformation. This
leads to instability in the structure. And also Transfer of lateral displacement induces
moment at slab column connection, which is of complex 3-dimensional behaviour.
Despite the advantages of flat slab, it fails to gravity loads by punching shear. It can be
overcome by providing column drops in low seismic areas. But when these flat slab
structures situated in seismic zones, the movements transferring from slab to column
through shear increases further more and becoming more tendency to punching shear
failure during earthquakes. Due to the flexibility of flat slab buildings, they must be
combined with a stiffer lateral force resisting system in high seismic regions like shear
walls, braces to reduce lateral loads on structural frame. When flat slab is used in
combination with bracings, shear

Advertisements

wall for lateral load resistance, the column in building can be designed for only 25% of the
design seismic force. Thus the behavior of a structure for dynamic loads can be
determined by model analysis and dynamic behavior can be examined by considering the
parameters as Storey drift, base shear, time period and acceleration of model.

PROBLEM FORMULATION

Here, we are mainly depending on design of flat slab RCC structure in four different
types. It may be mainly two parts, they are 1) with drops , 2) without drop and these two
models are modeled with shear walls at corners. When a flat slab structure referenced by
clear from previous literature are unstable for seismic forces, analytically investigating
the behavior of flat slab during the earthquakes and checked for increase of punching
shear from gravity loads to earthquake loads by taking one center column and one
exterior column in intermediate frame in model 1 and also checked for tendency of
punching shear failure in flat slabs . The design has to be Response spectrum method is
considered to analyze the structure by using ETABS software.

Here, FOUR models were created and all are analyzed for seismic loads.

Those are
1. Flat slab structure without drop
2. Flat slab structure with column drops
3. Flat slab structure with shear wall
4. Flat slab structure with column drops and shear wall together.

MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF 6 STOREY COLLEGE BUILDING

Grade of concrete= M25

Grade of steel =Fe 415
Slab thickness = 0.260 m

2/17
Number of stories = (6) G+5
Number of bays along X-direction = 4
Number of bays along Y-direction = 5
Storey height = 3.2meters
Bay width along X-direction = 8m
Bay width along Y-direction = 8m
Column =0.7×0.7m
Edge beam =0.3×0.23m

Loading specifications.
Wall load for the outer side = 14 kN/m
Wall load for the inner side = 9 kN/m
Wall load for the terrace = 4 kN/m
Dead load of slab = 6.5 kN/m2
Live load = 4 kN/m2

Earthquake load for the building has been calculated as per IS-1893:2002
Zone (Z) = III
Soil =medium

Response Reduction Factor ( RF ) = 5

Importance Facto =1
Damping Ratio = 0.05

For Seismic loading only 50% of the imposed load is considered.

3/17
FIG1: working plan

4/17
FIG2:Model 1(Flat slab structure without drop)

5/17
FIG3:Model 2(Flat slab structure with column drop only)

6/17
FIG4:Model 3(Flat slab structure with shear wall)

7/17
FIG5:Model 4(Flat slab structure with drop and shear wall together)

Response spectrum method

Response-spectrum analysis is useful for decision making to select structural type, before
designing a structure. It gives the dynamic performance of a structure. Structures of
shorter period experience greater acceleration, whereas those of longer period
experience greater displacement.

The number of modes to be considered in analysis should be such that the sum of total of
model mass of all the modes considered is not less than 90% of total seismic mass of
structure.

By considering 12 modes mass participation of flat slab building is achieved up to

94%.Therefore 12modes are considered for all models.

Advertisements

Center of mass & centre of rigidity coincides, due to regularity in the plan, mass and
stiffness of the building. so providing shear walls at all corners symmetrically may not
affect center of mass and center of rigidity.

RESULTS:

Table1: comparison of frequencies of mode shapes in all 4 models.

Mode. No MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4

(Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz)

1 0.558 0.669 1.096 1.189

2 0.562 0.673 1.101 1.193

3 0.616 0.707 1.923 1.985

4 1.956 2.262 4.503 4.656

5 1.969 2.277 4.51 4.662

6 2.153 2.403 5.401 6.233

7 4.126 4.545 5.487 6.358

8 4.144 4.566 5.54 6.404

9 4.532 4.854 5.601 6.442

10 5.386 6.211 5.705 6.568

11 5.476 6.369 5.721 6.588

8/17
 12 5.513 6.369 5.788 6.666

Graph1: graph for fundamental mode of frequencies.

Graph 2: graph for fundamental time period

Table 3: comparison of design storey shear.

height of Story MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4

building(m) (KN) (KN) (KN) (KN)

2.1 Plinth 1164.53 1412.03 2194.68 2405.98

9/17
 5.6 STORY1 1163.58 1410.9 2193.15 2404.32

8.8 STORY2 1133.17 1374.32 2135.56 2341.74

12 STORY3 1058.17 1284.14 1993.87 2187.75

15.2 STORY4 918.77 1116.53 1730.55 1901.58

18.4 STORY5 695.25 847.75 1308.3 1442.68

21.6 STORY6 367.7 453.88 689.55 770.21

Graph 3: graph shown for storey shear in all 4 models.

Table4: comparison of storey displacements in x-direction in 4 models

Story MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

STORY1 3.1 3 1.1 1.1

STORY2 5.7 5.2 2.2 2.1

STORY3 8.1 7.1 3.5 3.3

STORY4 10.2 8.7 4.8 4.5

STORY5 11.8 9.9 6 5.6

STORY6 13.1 10.7 7.2 6.6

10/17
Graph4: graph shown for comparison of storey displacements in x-direction.

PUNCHING SHEAR FAILURE IN FLAT SLAB BUILDINGS

Through checking punching shear stress( ?v )variation at various places in prescribed
4models

Table 5: Comparison of shear stresses, corresponding to Mx moments in column C13

(center column).

Story DD+LL DD+LL+EQX

? 2 ? 2
v(N/mm ) v(N/mm )

6 1.180209 1.1678

5 1.181 1.1852

4 1.1789 1.2166

3 1.1832 1.2413

2 1.1858 1.2689

1 1.1927 1.3293

11/17
Graph5: Comparison of shear stresses corresponding to Mx moments in column C13

TABLE6: Comparison of shear stresses corresponding to Mx moments in column C11

(exterior column).

Story DD+LL DD+LL+EQX

? (N/mm2) ? (N/mm2)
v v

6 1.331665 1.362915

5 1.269498 1.269238

4 1.28516 1.241355

3 1.254228 1.23

2 1.25 1.251425

1 0.891808 1.073618

12/17
GRAPH6: Comparison of shear stresses corresponding to Mx moments in column C11

TABLE7: Comparison of punching shear stresses in column C13 (center column)

corresponding to 4 models

STOREY NO MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4

? (N/mm2) ? (N/mm2) ? (N/mm2) ? (N/mm2)
v v v v

6 1.1879 0.858 1.140 0.890

5 1.1868 0.878 1.217 0.893

4 1.224 0.905 1.230 0.904

3 1.254 0.920 1.239 0.909

2 1.287 0.932 1.244 0.901

1 1.359 0.948 1.245 0.893

13/17
Graph7: Comparison of punching shear stresses in column C13 corresponding to 4
models.

Table8: Comparison of punching shear stresses in column C11 (exterior column)

corresponding to 4 models

STOREY NO MODE1 MODE2 MODE3 MODEL4

? 2 ? 2 ? 2 ? 2
v(N/mm ) v(N/mm ) v(N/mm ) v(N/mm )

6 1.466 1.179 1.387 1.115

5 1.354 1.068 1.298 1.031

4 1.320 1.042 1.303 1.033

3 1.225 0.973 1.238 0.980

2 1.332 1.096 1.391 1.118

1 1.119 0.801 0.931 0.674

14/17
Graph8: Comparison of punching shear stresses in column C11 (exterior column)
corresponding to 4 models

CONCLUSIONS:
Within the scope of present work following conclusions are drown

• Fundamental mode of frequencies of a flat slab structure increase 20% when drops
panels are present, as further increasing of stiffness by providing shear walls those
values increases to 96%.

• Base Shear values increases from model1 to model 4. As weight of structure increases
from model1 to model4

• Flat slab attracts more shear value, when flat slab provided with shear wall rather than
flat slab having column drops.

• Providing column drops to flat slab, storey displacements reduces slightly, as stiffness
increases slightly. But when flat slabs combine with shear walls, these displacements
reduces tremendously as stiffness of shear walls increases overall lateral stiffness of
structure.

• For inner columns, punching shear stresses are increasing linearly from top stories to
bottom stories. As earthquake moments are increasing from top stories to bottom stories.
But the punching shear variation due to the gravity loads are not much changes from
storey to storey. This shows that earthquake moments are more effective in producing
punching shear at bottom stories.

• Due to the effect of exterior panel moments and earthquake moments, punching shear
stresses varying slightly irregular in exterior columns. In exterior columns punching shear
stress is more in columns at top stories than the columns in the bottom stories.

15/17
• Punching shear failure occurs, more in flat plate. On provision of column drops it’s
punching shear stress decreases unto 25%.

• Provision of shear walls may not effective in reducing punching shear on intermediate
storey’s but effective in top and bottom storey’s as shear wall attracts lateral moments
from columns.

REFERENCES:
1. Structural Dynamics By Mario Paz & W. Leigh – FIFTH EDITION.
2. “Applications of RCC flat slab structures in seismic regions”. George E. Lelekakis,
Ioannis A. Tegos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Civil Engineering,
Thessaloniki, Greece.
3. “ Solution of Shear Wall Location in Multi-Storey Building”, referenced by Dipendu
Bhunia, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Group, BITS Pilani, Rajasthan, in India.
4. “Punching shear design of earthquake resistant slab column connections” by Sami
Megally and Amin Ghali, ACI Structural Journal, Title No. 97 – S73.
5. “Seismic Behaviour of Buildings Having Flat Slabs with Drops” referenced by Dr.
Uttamasha Gupta1, Shruti Ratnaparkhe, Padma Gome Professor, SGSITS, journal of
IJERT, Vol 3, Issue 5, May 2014.
6. IS456 – Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete code of practice.
7. “Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures” by Pankaj agarwal, manish shrikhande.
8. “Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat plates” by Austin Pan, ACI
Structural journal, Title No. 86 – S27.
9. “Seismic Resistance of Nonductile slab – Column Connections in Existing Flat – Slab
Buildings” by A. J. Durrani, ACI structural Journal, Title No. 92 – S46.
10. The design of structure ,authors thank Dr R.K.Ingle and Dr. O.R.Jaiswal of VNIT
Nagpur and Dr. Bhupinder Singhof NIT Jalandhar for their review and assistancein the
development of this example problem.

Advertisements

We at engineeringcivil.com are thankful to Er M.RAJAGOPAL REDDY for submitting this

paper to us. We hope this will provide immense help to other civil engineers in
understanding the Design of RCC Flat Slab Structure Under Earthquake Loading
Using Etabs.

Share this post

Kanwarjot Singh

Kanwarjot Singh is the founder of Civil Engineering Portal, a leading civil engineering
website which has been awarded as the best online publication by CIDC. He did his BE
civil from Thapar University, Patiala and has been working on this website with his team
of Civil Engineers.

Related Posts

16/17
Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings
Read More

Earthquake Resistant Buildings

Read More

COLD WEATHER CONCRETING

Read More

Self Compacting Concrete

Read More

What are various types of Admixtures?

Read More

Factors Affecting Strength And Workability Of Concrete

Read More

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17/17