IJACEA :

Volume 1 Number 1 January-June 2012 Academic Research Journals (India), pp. 29-37

VARIATION IN PERCENTAGE OF STEEL FOR A BUILDING DESIGNED IN VARIOUS SEISMIC ZONES

P. VIJAY KUMAR & P. PRABHU TEJA PURNACHANDRA SAHA
Students, Department of Civil Engineering, K L University, Guntur, A.P, India, (E-mail: polimeru.vijaykumar@gmail.com, pprabhuteja24@gmail.com) Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, K L University, Guntur, A.P, India, (Corresponding authors (E-mail: dr.purnasaha@gmail.com)

ABSTRACT: Earthquake, a natural phenomenon of earth surface leads to a catastrophic situation and this is mainly due to the collapse of the constructions. Also we know that more than 50% of Indian land is vulnerable to seismic vibrations. Hence there is a dire need to have a clear knowledge regarding the factors that results in the damage and try to mitigate the disaster by employing some specific standards in the constructions of buildings in such earthquake prone areas. But the present code IS 1893:2002 doesnt provide information regarding the variation of percentage of steel from zone to zone. This paper mainly gives the variations in the percentage of the reinforcement when the building designed as per IS 456 and when the building is designed in different earthquake zones considering earthquake force as per IS 1893:2002. Keywords: seismic zones, percentage of steel, earthquake load, ductility, survivability

1.

INTRODUCTION

The vast devastation of engineered systems and facilities during the past few earthquakes has exposed serious deficiencies in the design and construction practices. Conventional civil engineering structures are designed on the basis of two main criteria that are strength and rigidity. The strength is related to damageability or ultimate state, assuring that the force level developed in structures remains in the elastic range, or some limited plastic deformation. The rigidity is related to serviceability limit state, for which the structural displacements must remain in some limits. This assures that no damage occurs in non structural elements. In case of Earthquake design, ductility is an essential attribute of a structure that must respond to strong ground motions (Andreas, 2001). Ductility serves as the shock absorber in a building, for it

30

International Journal of Advances in Civil Engineering and Architecture (IJACEA)

reduces the transmitted force to one that is sustainable. Therefore, the survivability of a structure under strong seismic actions relies on the capacity to deform beyond the elastic range, and to dissipate seismic energy through plastic deformations. So, the ductility is related to the control of whether the structure is able to dissipate the given amount of seismic energy considered in structural analysis (Pankaj Agarwal, 2006). Therefore while designing an earthquake resisting structure these three factors rigidity (serviceability), strength (damageability) and ductility (survivability) should be taken under consideration. But, while designing an earthquake resistant structure the major importance will be given to the increase of ductility of the building (IS 456, 2000). The ductility of the building can be increased by increasing the reinforcement (steel) in the structure. But the reinforcement plays an important role in the economy of the structure. The present IS code 1893:2002 provides information regarding the excess amount of reinforcement to be used in the earthquake design but it doesnt prescribe the percentage of steel that should be increased in the earthquake resistant design when compared with the normal design as per IS 456 code. This paper mainly gives the variations in the percentage of the reinforcement when the building designed as per IS 456 and when the building is designed in different earthquake zones considering earthquake force as per IS 1893:2002. This gives the approximate percentage increase in the economy compared with normal design (H J Shah, 2008). 2. METHODOLOGY Seismic analyses of the structures are carried out on the basis of lateral force assumed to act along with the gravity loads. 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 corresponding mode of shape. The base shear is distributed along the height of the structure in terms of lateral forces according to codal provisions (Kazuhiro, 1987). This method is usually conservative for low to medium height buildings with a regular conformation. A five storied RC building has been analyzed by using the equivalent static method. 2.1. Preliminary Data for Example Building
Type of the structure Number of stories Floor-to-Floor height Walls Materials Seismic analysis Design philosophy Size of the columns Size of the beams in longitudinal and transverse directions Depth of the slab Type of soil Multi Storied Building Five, G+4 3m 300mm thick including plaster Concrete (M20) and Reinforcement (Fe415) Equivalent static method (IS 1893 (Part I): 2002) limit state method conforming to IS 456:2000 0.3mX0.35m 0.3mX0.3m 0.12 m Hard Rocky soil

Variation in Percentage of Steel for a Building Designed in Various

31

The plan and elevation of the building taken for analysis and design is shown in Figures 1 & 2. 2.2. Loading Data 2.2.1. Dead Load (DL) 1. Weight of slab: 25D kN/m2, where D is the total depth of slab (Assume total depth of slab= 0.12m) 2. Weight of walls: Walls (300mm thick including plaster) =5.7 kN/m/meter height (19 @0.3) 2.2.2. Live load (LL) 1. Load on each slab= 2 kN/m2 2.2.3. Earthquake load (EQ) The total design seismic base shear (Vb) along any principal direction shall be determined by multiplying the design horizontal acceleration in the considered direction of vibration (Ah) and the seismic weight of the building [6]. And the values are tabulated in Table 1. Vb=Ah*W (1) Where, Ah = design horizontal acceleration in the considered direction of vibration = (Z/2)*(I/R)*(Sa/g) W = total seismic weight of the building.

Figure 1: Plan of Building

32

International Journal of Advances in Civil Engineering and Architecture (IJACEA)

Figure 2: Elevation of Building Table 1 Base Shear Values in Both X and Y Directions Z ZONE-II ZONE-III ZONE-IV ZONE-V 0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36 I 1 1 1 1 R 5 5 5 5 Sa/g-X Direction 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 Sa/g-Y Direction 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 Ah X Direction 0.0222 0.03552 0.053 0.079 Ah Y Direction 0.0196 0.0314 0.047 0.07 Vbx 93.41 149.5 223.0 332.4 Vby 82.47 131.9 197.7 294.5

In order to distribute the design force the ratio Wihi2/Wihi2 is calculated in Table 2. The design base shear (Vb) computed shall be distributed along the height of the building as per the following expression (BIS1893, 2000) Where,
Qi =Vb*(Wi*hi2/Wi*hi2) (2)

Qi is the design lateral forces at floor i, Wi is the seismic weights of the floor i, and hi is the height of the floor i, measured from base.

Variation in Percentage of Steel for a Building Designed in Various

33

And the corresponding values in all the four zones are tabulated in Table 3.
Table 2 Calculation of Wihi2/ Wihi2 Level Level-5 Level-4 Level-3 Level-2 Level-1 Wi 615.855 897.960 897.960 897.960 897.960 hi 15 12 9 6 3 Wihi2 138567.3 129306.2 72734.76 32326.56 8081.64 Wihi2/Wihi2 0.36 0.34 0.19 0.085 0.021

Table 3 The Design Base Shear Distribution Along the Height of the Building ZONE II STROREY NO 5 4 3 2 1 QX (KN) 1.98 7.92 17.83 31.7 33.97 QY(KN) 1.749 6.99 15.74 27.98 29.99 ZONE III QX (KN) 3.16 12.6 28.53 50.72 54.35 QY (KN) 2.79 11.19 25.18 44.7 47.98 ZONE IV QX (KN) 4.72 18.92 42.5 75.68 81.102 QY(KN) 4.19 16.77 37.75 67.11 71.92 ZONE V QX(KN) 7.05 28.20 63.45 112.809 120.88 QY(KN) 6.24 24.98 56.21 99.94 107.10

The lateral force on each storey is again distributed based on the deflection and stiffness of the frame. The total lateral load in proportion to the stiffness of each frame in all the four zones (H M Salem, 2011). The distributed lateral forces in zone-2 are shown in the following Figure 3 .

Figure 3: Earthquake Loading in X-Direction

34

International Journal of Advances in Civil Engineering and Architecture (IJACEA)

2.3. Load Combinations As per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 Clause no. 6.3.1.2, the following load cases have to be considered for Analysis: 1.5 (DL + IL) 1.2 (DL + IL EL) 1.5 (DL EL) 0.9 DL 1.5 EL Earthquake load must be considered for +X, -X, +Y and Y directions. Thus a total of 13 load combinations are taken for analysis. Since large amount of data is difficult to handle manually (M.H. Arslan, 2007), all the 13 load combinations are analyzed using software SAP2000. All the load combinations are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Different Load Combinations No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Load combination 1.5(DL+LL) 1.2(DL+LL+EQX) 1.5(DL+EQX) 0.9DL+1.5EQX 0.9DL-1.5EQX 1.5(DL-EQX) 1.2(DL+LL-EQX) 1.2(DL+LL+EQY) 1.5(DL+EQY) 0.9DL+1.5EQY 0.9DL-1.5EQY 1.5(DL-EQY) 1.2(DL+LL-EQY)

For design of various building elements (beams or columns), the design data may be collected from computer output. Important design forces for selected beams and columns will be tabulated in Table 5 and Table 6. For convenience we have taken beam 65 and column 1 and then the analysis and design is performed in all the four zones similarly the entire structure is analysed and designed.
Table 5 Behavior of Beam 65 for Different Load Combinations in Different Seismic Zones
Zone II Forces Max +ve moment Max ve moment shear 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6.8 9.0 4.4 4.5 8.79 15.7 11.5 11.6 14.5 22.5 13.81 13.8 11.6 15.6 2.8 9.48 4.8 4.8 6.3 4.8 1.6 4.5 4.45 6.0 12.1 6.3 6.4 4.8 6.4 1.9 13.8 13.8 5.8 20.32 10.85 10.8 10.85 10.85 2.96
Contd...

Variation in Percentage of Steel for a Building Designed in Various

Zone III Forces Max +vemoment Max-vemoment shear Max +vemoment Max veMoment Shear Max +veMoment Max veMoment shear 1 7.0 8.8 14.5 7.0 8.8 14.5 6.9 8.8 14.5 2 9.34 12.1 20.1 10.4 20.8 26.0 9.1 11.98 19.9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12.7 6.0 15.0 7.4 4.5 11.4 20.7 10.9 20.4 12 12.7 6.02 15.09 7.4 4.5 11.4 20.7 10.7 20.4

35
13 3.17 7.67 6.3 1.9 3.01 3.8 9.5 14.9 10.3

IV

4.72 4.7 6.3 6.27 1.87 9.8 6.03 6.0 6.27 6.22 4.7 4.7 2.0 17.3 12.8 12.8 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 3.2 23.71 15.1 15.1 8.1 8.49 17.2 17.2 6.7 9.3 4.6 4.5 17.2 17.17 8.5 8.3 12.1 12.3 7.4 7.4 17.9 17.9 17.98 17.9 8.9 20.5 11.39 11.4 4.5 4.5 6.2 6.2 2.3 11.3 10.8 10.7 6.2 6.2 4.5 4.5 2.23 23.6 20.7 20.7 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 4 27.9 20.4 20.4

Table 6 Behavior of Column 1 for Different Load Combinations in Different Seismic Zones
Load comb ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V Axial force (KN) Moment (KN-m) Axial force (KN) Moment (KN-m) Axial force (KN) Moment (KNm) Axial force (KN) Moment (KNm) 1 2 3 4 81.9 12.5 70.7 36.6 7.48 40.7 36 72 5 83 12.5 70.7 36.6 7.48 40.7 36 72 6 83.5 12.5 70.7 36.6 7.48 40.7 36 72 7 102 11.4 112 30.7 163 34 188 59 8 298 3.1 240 3.17 245 7 181 2.23 9 160 2.9 88 5.8 95 10.6 15 3.5 10 161 2.9 88 5.8 95 10.6 15 3.5 11 162 2.9 88.6 5.8 95 10.6 15 3.5 12 13 207.0 230.0 81.9 4.80 8.5 12.5 211 226 70 3.6 27.8 36.6 211 175.4 7.48 3.65 31.2 40.7 211 150 36 3.65 56 72 162 40.6 2.9 3.8 88.6 98.5 5.8 6.1 95 93 10.6 10 15 157 3.5 3.5

3. RESULTS The percentage variation of steel in the beam in different seismic zones is represented in the following Figure 4. It is observed that the percentage variation is very small from zone-3 to zone-5 and no variation from zone-2 to zone-3 and the variations are tabulated in table 7. The percentage variation of steel in the column 1 in different zones is represented in the following figure 5. It is observed that the percentage variation is linear from zone-3 to zone-5 and a very small variation from zone-2 to zone-3 and the variations are tabulated in Table 7.

Figure 4: Graph Showing Variation of Percentage of Steel in Beam 65 in different Seismic Zones

36

International Journal of Advances in Civil Engineering and Architecture (IJACEA)

Table 7 Variation of Percentage of Steel in Beam 65 and in Column 1 in Different Seismic Zones Zone II Zone III 0.8 0.952 Zone IV 0.82 1.9 Zone V 0.87 2.85

% of steel % of Steel

0.8 0.858

Figure 5: Graph Showing Variation of Percentage of Steel in Column 1 in Different Seismic Zones

The variation of percentage of steel in the entire structure is calculated similarly to the above beam and column and the results are plotted in the Figure 6. it is observed that the variation in the percentage of steel is very small from zone-2 to zone 3 and it is greater from zone-3 to zone-5. The results are tabulated in Table 8.

Figure 6: Variation of % of Steel for the Building Frame (Columns & Beams) in Different Seismic Zones

Variation in Percentage of Steel for a Building Designed in Various

37

Table 8 Variation of % of Steel for the Building Frame (Columns & Beams) in Different Seismic Zones Zone II % of steel 1.6597 Zone III 1.7 Zone IV 2.01 Zone V 2.567

4.

CONCLUSION

The present code IS 1893:2002 doesnt provide information regarding the variation of percentage of steel from zone to zone. The variations in the percentage of the reinforcement when the building designed as per IS 456 and when the building is designed in different earthquake zones considering earthquake force as per IS 1893:2002. The percentage of Steel is not varying much in Beams, compared to columns. Variation in beams from zone II to zone V is around 0.07%. Variation in columns is linear from zone III to zone V. Variation from zone II to zone V is around 1.95%. Variation of steel for whole frame between zone II to zone V is around 0.91%. References
Andreas J. Kappos and Georgios Panagopoulos (2004), Performance-based Seismic Design of 3dr/c Buildings Using Inelastic Static and Dynamic Analysis Procedures, ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 41(1), 141-158. Andreas J. Kappos, Alireza Manafpour (2001), Seismic Design of R/C Buildings with the Aid of Advanced Analytical Techniques, Engineering Structures, Elsevier, 23, 319-332. BIS 1893 (2000), Criteria for Earthquake Design of Structures Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi H.J. Shah and Sudhir K. Jain (2008), Final Report: A -Earthquake Codes IITK-GSDMA Project on Building Codes (Design Example of a Six Storey Building) , IITK-GSDMA-EQ26-V3.0 H. M. Salem, A. K. El-Fouly, H.S. Tagel-Din (2011), Toward an Economic Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures Against Progressive Collapse, Engineering Structures, Elsevier, 33, 3341-3350. IS 456 (2000), Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. Kazuhiro Kitayama, Shunsuke Otani and Hiroyuki Aoyama (1987), Earthquake Resistant Design Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-column Joints, Published in the Proceedings, Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Wairakei, New Zealand, August, 5-8, 1, 315-326. M.H. Arslan, H.H. Korkmaz (2007), What is to be Learned from Damage and Failure of Reinforced Concrete Structures during Recent Earthquakes in Turkey?, Engineering Failure Analysis, Elsevier, 14, 122. Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande (2006), Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, ISBN 978-81-203-2892-1, PHI Learning Private Limited.