See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339593916

Reliability Analysis of Multi-Storey Building with Floating Column by

Staad.pro-V8i

Article · February 2020

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3662097

CITATION READS

1 902

3 authors, including:

Sangeeta Uikey
Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya
2 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sangeeta Uikey on 29 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 3 Issue 1
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662097

Reliability Analysis of Multi-Storey Building with Floating

Column by Staad.pro-V8i
Maneesh Ahirwar1*, Er. Rahul Satbhaiya2
1
M.Tech Scholar (Structural Engineering), 2Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering, Infinity Management & Engineering College, Sagar, M.P.,
India.
*Corresponding Author
E-mail Id:[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Buildings with a floating column are difficult to make in urban areas nowadays. To build
these types of structures in the earthquake areas it is highly undesirable. This paper presents
the study of a floating column in the building for construction with analysis. This study deals
with the stiffness balance of all the storey and is proposed to reduce the irregularity
introduced by the columns which are floating in the building. For this whole work of
buildings with floating columns, we used Finite element method codes for A two-dimensional,
multi-story frame building that is used to study the response of a structure type to different
types of seismic excitation, where variable frequency content keeps the time of each result
constant. The time history of floor displacement, inter-story displacement, foundation shear
force, overturning moment and overall analysis was performed to calculate the frame with
floating columns. Modeling was performed through detailed analysis using a commercially
available FEM tool, StaadPro v8i.0.

Keywords:–Floating column, static analysis, dynamic analysis, earthquake zone, reliability.

INTRODUCTION with the raise of the building. Various

In India, having an open first storey in researchers proposed the concept of a
multi -storey building as a not usual floating column to sustain the structure
feature [1,2]. Firstly this space is adopted during earthquake activity.
for parking purposes or used for the
reception area in the first storey [3,4]. THE NECESSITY OF FLOATING
However, due to open storey or also COLUMN
knowns as soft stroey the irregularities in The concent of the floating column has
the structure induced. The geomatic been increased in the construction
irregularities are not favorable in the practices due to its several advantages. The
seismic zone construction. Currently, the major reason of including the floating
seismic vulnerability of India is an columns are as follows
increasing[5-7]. In IS 1893:2016 even the 1. This helps to alter the plan of top
first zone of the seismic effect has been floors to our convenience,
merged with zone II [16,17]. It shows the 2. the transfer beam that support floating
higher susceptibility of the seismic activity columns will be designed with more
in the county. During earthquake total reinforcement.
seismic base shear is beared by a building 3. Transfer the load of the above storey
depend on its natural period, this seismic of building at a specific column
distribution of building is dependent on the safely.
distribution of mass and stiffness along

HBRP Publication Page 1-9 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 1

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 3 Issue 1
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662097

Fig.1:-Floating column

OBJECTIVE OF WORK Shrikanth (2014) column and

1. The objective of the present work is to complexities with floating column for
study the behavior of multi-storey earthquake force. For this four models
building with a floating column under were constructed for medium soil and then
earthquake excitation. this building structure is analyses these
2. Remove irregularity in multi- models all the seismic zones software and
storeybuilding. results of this analysis is displacement, soft
3. Calculation of base shear, overturning, storey and tabulated on basis of seismic
drift on the multi-storey building. analysis [11].
Sekhar and Prasad (2014) column and
RELATED WORK without floating column is studied under
Abdul AzeedBeebijahiraTalageri (2019) static load, forced and free vibration
in Storey then the drift &Storey condition and the results are plotted for
displacement is more compare to without both the frames by comparing time history
floating column structure but by the help of floor displacement and base done by
of floating column space of the building is software STADD pro v8i and comparison
set by client it is risky in nature but give of these models are presented. So that this
satisfactory results[8]. study help us to find the analytical
Kuldeep Dubey&Rakesh Patel properties of the structure and we can
(2018)floating column then the cost of constructed the building structure with sys
building is increases due to increase in [12].
reinforcement & concrete but building
gives satisfactory results and the with
METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION
floating column[9].
Static Analysis:-This analysis is done by
Bhensdadia and Shah (2015) earthquake
plane frame element.
zone soft storey and floating column effect
is analysis. In this study push over analysis
is adopted. In this analysis the yield Plane Frame Element:-
1. Plane frame element is a finite
performance level of building for
displacement is done up to failure. This element method in this method
will h collapse load of the structure. For stiffness matrix is used to solve
this results, three RC bar frame structure theproblem.
with G+4, G+9, G+15 stories are 2. This is 2-D finite element method with
compared with base force and two co-ordinate namely local
displacement of RC bar frame structure andglobal.
with G+4, G+9, G+15 stories in differ 3. Plane frame element having area(A),
Jamnagar, Rajkot and Bhuj using software length(L), elasticity(E) and moment
SAP2000 [10]. ofinertia(I).

HBRP Publication Page 1-9 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 2

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 3 Issue 1
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662097

4. In this method each element has two mode shape of the building structure
nodes. according to load condition by using
5. In this method each node have 2 some numerical calculation.
displacement and 1 rotation are 3. This method is used for break the
available. So plane frame element has coupled equation into uncoupled
degree of freedom. i.e. 6no equation. This make solution easy.
6. So stiffness matrix generally [M]{X”}+[C]{X’}+[K]{X}=X”g(t)[
6X6matrix. M]{I} (coupledequation)
4. After all the calculation we can get the
Dynamic Analysis participation factor of building
1. Dynamic analysis of any building according to modeshape.
structure is a branch of structural 5. This participation factor further
engineering in which we study the solveby numerical method. That is
behaviourof flexible building due to new mark'smethod.
dynamic loading. This dynamic load
changes according to time. NEWMARK’S METHOD
2. Dynamic load include earthquake, Data of Building Structure are as
wind and live loadetc. Follows
3. In comparison with static analysis, Input Data of Loading
displacement and stresses are much 1. Member load(outer wall of ground
higher. This is find by following floor) =14.4
method- 2. Member load(inner wall of ground
floor) = 7.21
st nd
Time History Analysis 3. Member load(inner wall 1 and 2
1. Time history analysis is a finite floor)=11.88
st nd
element method. This method use to 4. Member load(outer wall 1 and 2
calculate the response at discrete time, floor)=5.94
but this method required more 5. Member load(top parapet wall) =1.8
calculationeffort. 6. Floorweight(KN/M2) =3
2. This method is used to calculate the

Fig.2:-Plan of building with fc

HBRP Publication Page 1-9 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 3

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 3 Issue 1
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662097

Fig.3:-Plan of building without fc

Table 1:-Input values in StaadPro V8i [13,14,15]

HBRP Publication Page 1-9 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 4

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 3 Issue 1
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662097

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Maximum results of g+2 storey building on column:-
Table 2:-Values on columns
TYPE OF BUILDIN GROUN D FIRST FLOO SECON D
No. Content
G FLOOR R FLOOR
1. DISPLACEMEN WITH FC 4.779 13.481 13.845
T (mm) WITHOUT 3.860 6.7000 8.555
FC
2. BENDING WITH FC 59.656 80.529 59.608
MOMENT (kN-
WITHOUT 19.116 17.440 15.156
m)
FC
3. SHEAR FORCE WITH FC 37.823 22.497 22.312
(kN) WITHOUT 10.442 12.324 9.314
FC
4. AXIAL FORCE WITH FC 1570 720.616 152.748
(kN)
WITHOUT 601.692 384.402 162.344
FC

DISPLACEMENT

15

10
DISPLACEMENT
(mm) WITH FC

DISPLACEMENT (mm)
WITHOUT FC

GROUND FIRST SECOND FLOOR FLOORFLOOR

Graph No.1:-Displacement between fc and wfc buildings

BENDING MOMENT

100
80
60
40
20 BENDING MOMENT (kN-m)
WITH FC
BENDING MOMENT (kN-m)
WITHOUT FC

Graph No.2:-Bending moment between fc and wfc buildings

HBRP Publication Page 1-9 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 5

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 3 Issue 1
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662097

SHEAR FORCE

40
35
30
25
20 SHEAR FORCE (kN) WITH FC
15
10 SHEAR FORCE (kN) WITHOUT
FC

GROUND FIRST SECOND FLOOR FLOOR

FLOOR

Graph No.3:-Shear force between fc and wfc buildings

AXIAL FORCE

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600 AXIAL FORCE (kN) WITHFC
400
200 AXIALFORCE
(kN) WITHOUT FC

GROUND FIRST SECOND FLOOR

FLOOR FLOOR

Graph No.4:-Axial force between fc and wfc buildings

Maximum results of g+2 storey building on beam:-

Table 3:-Maximum values on beam

TYPE OF GROUND FIRST SECOND
No. Content
BUILDING FLOOR FLOOR FLOOR
1. DISPLACEMENT (mm) WITH FC 13.788 15.133 15.300
WITHOUT FC 6.127 8.353 8.649
BENDING MOMENT (kN-
2. WITH FC 344.718 77.007 57.881
m)
WITHOUT FC 54.544 47.340 6.440
3. SHEAR FORCE (kN) WITH FC 219.388 66.856 42.435
WITHOUT FC 53.584 53.118 19.505
4. AXIAL FORCE (kN) WITH FC 4.884 2.589 2.334
WITHOUT FC 1.449 0.482 0.322

HBRP Publication Page 1-9 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 6

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 3 Issue 1
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662097

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Mode shape of framework: -

Table 4:-Mode shape of building

MODE TYPE OF BUILDING FREQUENCY(CYCLE/SEC) PEROID(SEC)
1 WITH FC 1.211 0.82579
WITHOUT FC 0.968 1.03272
2 WITH FC 1.227 0.81526
WITHOUT FC 0.982 1.01796
3 WITH FC 1.388 0.72068
WITHOUT FC 1.064 0.93989
4 WITH FC 3.362 0.29744
WITHOUT FC 3.051 0.32774
5 WITH FC 3.398 0.29428
WITHOUT FC 3.083 0.32435
6 WITH FC 3.787 0.26408
WITHOUT FC 3.358 0.29778
Table 4 shows the different mode shapes at different load combinations in building with

MODE

FREQUENCY(CYCLE/SEC
) WITHFC
FREQUENCY(CYCLE/SEC
) WITHOUT FC

MODE SHAPE

Fig.4:-Mode shape of a building

Is code time history:-

MODE Type of Building Spectral Acceleration Design Seismic Coefficient

Table 5:-Time history

X Y Z
1 WITH FC 1.64692 0.0593 0.0000 0.0593
WITHOUT FC 1.31691 0.0474 0.0000 0.0474
2 WITH FC 1.66818 0.0601 0.0000 0.0601
WITHOUT FC 1.33600 0.0481 0.0000 0.0481
3 WITH FC 1.88710 0.0679 0.0000 0.0679
WITHOUT FC 1.44698 0.0521 0.0000 0.0521
4 WITH FC 2.50000 0.0900 0.0000 0.0900
WITHOUT FC 2.50000 0.0900 0.0000 0.0900
5 WITH FC 2.50000 0.0900 0.0000 0.0900
WITHOUT FC 2.50000 0.0900 0.0000 0.0900
6 WITH FC 2.50000 0.0900 0.0000 0.0900
WITHOUT FC 2.50000 0.0900 0.0000 0.0900

CONCLUSION buildings were safe.

1. When we applied a static load on two 2. Under dynamic load; files with
buildings; then we found that both floating column structure are not

HBRP Publication Page 1-9 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 7

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 3 Issue 1
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662097

secure. That is, the building was 4. Agarwal Pankaj, Shrikhande Manish
unsafe during the earthquake. (2009), “Earthquake resistant design
Therefore, for structural safety, the of structures”, PHI learning private
size of the beams and columns should limited, New Delhi edition 1st-2009.
be increased. 5. Sukumar behera, NIT, ROURKELA
3. With the increase in size the quantity (2012)- report about floating column
of concrete material is increased in seismic zone, dept. Of civil
by27.40%. engineering, NIT, Rourkela, 769008,
4. With the increase in displacement, may 2012.
bending moment, shear force and axial 6. Pratyushmalviya, Saurav (2014), -
force in beams and columns in the “comparative study of effect of
structure reinforcement increased floating columns on the cost analysis
by15.05%. of a structure designed on staad pro
5. Increase in quantity of concrete and V8i”- IJSER, 22-34p.
reinforcement building cost is 7. BadgireUdhav s., Shaikh A.N.,
increased by16.02%. Maskeravi g. (2015) – “Analysis of
6. After increasing the size and multistorey building with floating
strengthening; found in the stadd pro column”, IJER, 475- 478p.
analysis that the building is safe under 8. Abdul AzeedBeebijahiraTalageri
dynamic loads. Support beam (2019) – “effect of floating columns
thickness reduced to 500mm. on seismic response of multi-storeyed
7. In column at which supporting beam RC framed buildings” IJERT, 1131-
is rest, no. of reinforcement is find 1136p.
more. so reinforcement is increases 9. Kunldeep dubey and Rakesh Patel
and cross-sectional area isincreases. (2018)- Reliability Analysis of Multi-
8. By introducing a floating column, Storey Building with Floating Column
irregularities are removed from the for Long Span, IJIRSET, September
structure. 2018.7(9).
9. Make it available for use by using 10. Bhensdadia, Hardik and Siddharth
floating columns in the building. Shah (2015). “Pushover Analysis Of
Rc Frame Structure With Floating
REFERENCES Column And Soft Story In Different
1. Nitesh and Nitin Tiwari (2018)- “steel Earthquake Zones.”
concrete composite construction a 11. Shrikanth (2014) – “Seismic response
review”, IJRASET, nov.. 2018.6(11): of complex building with floating
ISSN 2321-9653.DOI: column and without floating column,
10.22214/ijraset.2018.11089 International journal of Engineering
2. Arlekar Jaswant N, Jain Sudhir K. and Research-Online. A Peer Reviewed
Murty C.V.R, (1997), “Seismic International Journal.
Response of RC Frame Buildings with 2014.2(4).ISSN: 2321-7758.
Soft First Storey”. Proceedings of the 12. Sekhar and Prasad (2014) – “Effect of
CBRI Golden Jubilee Conference on floating column on building
Natural Hazards in Urban Habitat, performance subjected to lateral
1997, New Delhi. load”, VJER, 134-143p.
3. Nanabala and ramancharla (2004)- 13. Tiwari, N., & Satyam, N. (2019).
“Seismic analysis of a normal building Experimental Study on the Influence
and floating column building”, IJERT, of Polypropylene Fiber on the
sep. 2014.3(9):981-987p. Swelling Pressure Expansion Attrib-

HBRP Publication Page 1-9 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 8

 Journal of Structural Engineering, its Applications and Analysis
Volume 3 Issue 1
e-ISSN: 2582-4384
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662097

utes of Silica Fume Stabilized Clayey 17. B.c.Punmia, Ashok ku. Jain, at.el.
Soil. Geosciences, 9(9), 77. Theory of structure, Laxmi
https://doi.org/10.3390/ publication (p) LDT.2013.
GEOSCIENCES9090377 18. Krishnamoorthy CS .“Finite element
14. Ashok kumarjain , B.C. punmia – analysis”, TMH publication, 1987.
“Reinforced concrete structure”,1(9).
15. Tiwari, N., & Satyam, N. (2020). An Cite this article as: Maneesh
experimental study on the behavior of Ahirwar, & Er. Rahul Satbhaiya.
lime and silica fume treated coir (2020). Reliability Analysis of Multi-
geotextile reinforced expansive soil Storey Building with Floating Column
subgrade. Engineering Science and by Staad.pro-V8i. Journal of Structural
Technology, an International Journal. Engineering, Its Applications and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.1 Analysis, 3(1), 1–9.
2.006. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662097
16. Anil k., Chopra. “Dynamic of
structures”, prentice hall, 1995.

HBRP Publication Page 1-9 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 9

View publication stats