Chapter-1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

Structures on the earth are generally subjected to two types of load i.e. static and dynamic. Static
loads are constant with time while dynamic loads are time varying. In general 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 neglecting 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 has provided important information for improving 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
deadly earthquakes that left thousands of people dying each time. The Bureau of Indian
standards (BIS) has been doing a considerable effort to mitigate 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. Development of Seismic Zoning map has been a subject of
research in India for the past 40 years. Seismic zoning map is a map that divides entire country
into different regions according to the earthquake potential in those regions.
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 isoseismics 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 Konya 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

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.
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 )S-
a/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 and V
and for irregular buildings of 12m or more in height situated in zones IV and 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 simulate the behavior of structure subjected to an

earthquake ground motion based 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
important to select an appropriate and simple model to match 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 tensional response are expected to be small. The model connects all
the plane frames in one principal direction by assuming 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.

Analysis
Process

External Behaviour Types Of

Of Structural
Action Materials Model

Static Elastic
3D, 2D
Analysis Analysis

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.

Linear static analysis or equivalent static analysis can only be used for regular structure with
limited height. 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 improvement 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 improvement
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 relatively simple to be implemented and provides information on the strength,
deformation, and ductility of the structure and the distribution of demands.
A non-linear dynamic analysis or inelastic time history analysis is the only method to describe
the actual behavior of the structure during an earthquake.

1.4.1 Code based procedure for seismic analysis

Main features of seismic method of analysis based on Indian standard are 1893 (part l ):2002 are
described as follows.

Equivalent lateral force

Seismic analysis of most of the structures is still carried out on the basis of lateral force assumed
to be equivalent to the actual loading. The base shear which is the aggregate even power on the
structure is computed on the premise of structure mass and key time of Vibration and comparing
mode shape. The base shear is appropriated along the stature of the structure as far as sidelong
powers as indicated by code equation. This strategy is normally traditionalist for low to medium
stature structures with a general configuration.

Response Spectrum Analysis

This strategy is appropriate for those structures where modes other than essential one influence
altogether the reaction of the structure. In this technique the reaction of multi level of flexibility
framework is communicated as the superposition of model reaction, each model reaction being
resolved from the ghostly investigation of single level of opportunity framework, which are then
joined to register the aggregate reaction. Display examination prompts the reaction history of the
structure to a predefined ground movement. Elastic time history analysis

A direct time history examination beats every one of the detriments of modular reaction
Spectrum Analysis, give non-straight conduct isn't included. This technique requires more
noteworthy computational exertion for figuring the reaction at discrete circumstances.

1.5 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.

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, peck ground acceleration
is compared for all types of models.

1.6 Layout of study

This dissertation is divided into six chapters.
 First chapter deals with the introduction of the Composite structure, in which discusses the
history of composite, definition of links, restraints, truss section, classification of
composite members , motivation and objective of the work.
 Second chapter deals with the literature survey of the composite structure, and discuss the
various research works like beam cracks, cost comparison, type of links, optimization of
members, etc.
 Third chapter deals with the composite structure introduction and detailed study.
 Fourth chapter deals with methodology, in which whole working method is discussed in
step wise also the Geometry analysis based on Finite Element method, which is start from
the introduction of the STAAD. Pro and how analysis is done and loading selection and
calculation as per Indian Standards.
 Fifth chapter deals with result and discussion of the vehicle load analysis, where it is
discussed on bending, shear forces, Axial force, displacement quantity and costing.
 Sixth chapter is the last one where it is deals with the conclusion and further scope of the
study.
 CHAPTER-2LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Previous History of Composite Construction

Composite construction as we know it today 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 issue of longitudinal slip between these elements was
soon identified.

Composite steel– solid shafts are the soonest type of the composite development strategy. In U.S.
a patent by an American specialist was produced for the shear connectors at the best rib of a
widespread steel area to anticipate longitudinal slip. This was the start of the improvement of
completely composite frameworks in steel and cement. Concrete-encased steel areas were at first
created keeping in mind the end goal to defeat the issue of imperviousness to fire and to
guarantee that the dependability of the steel segment was kept up all through stacking. The steel
segment and solid act compositely to oppose hub power and twisting minutes.

A composite tubular section was produced in light of the fact that they gave perpetual and vital
formwork to a pressure part and were instrumental in diminishing development time and thus
costs. They decrease the prerequisite of sidelong support and expensive tying, and additionally
give less demanding association with steel light emissions confined structure.

Composite sections have been acquainted as of late with consider the expansion in quality that
can be accomplished if the profiled steel sheeting is considered in quality computations.
Composite sections give changeless and indispensable fortification, which dispenses with the
requirement for setting and stripping of plywood and timber formwork. All the more as of late,
composite section and pillar frameworks have been created for strengthened cement encircled
development; this gives focal points like those credited to composite chunks for fortified solid
piece and shaft frameworks. These favourable circumstances incorporate decreased development
time because of end of formwork and disposal of unreasonable measures of strengthening steel.
This hence diminishes the traverse to-profundity proportions of normal bars and furthermore
decreases work costs.
 Figure 2.1 Composite Steel–Concrete Beams and Slabs, Car Park, Australia

The utilization of profiled steel sheeting as both changeless formwork and support to solid
chunks was first created in America in the mid 1950s. Following its presentation into the
United Kingdom in the 1970s it has turned into the most well-known type of floor framework
for steel encircled office structures. In Australia, in the mid 1990's much research was done
utilizing a similar development procedure in shafts moreover. In this part, an intensive audit
is given of research into composite development, including pillars, section with steel decking
and profiled composite shafts.

2.2 Studies on Composite Construction:-

2.2.1 Bhavin H. Zaveri, Bhargav K. Panchotiya, Smit U. Patel, Pratik A. Bilimoria

(Aug. 2016) [12]they did parametric investigation of RCC, steel and composite structures
under seismic stacking. For that they demonstrated and broke down the low ascent (g+5)
story RCC, steel and composite structures for a similar lattice example and same outer
burdens. RCC building components are resolved utilizing is 456 and that of steel structure
are resolved utilizing is 800. For composite working, because of inaccessibility of Indian
codes, areas are resolved utilizing ANSI codes. They did investigation on ETABS v.15. They
look at pillar powers, section powers, joint removals, story increasing velocities, story floats,
story most extreme relocations, story solidness and story shear. After investigation they come
to realize that for given seismic conditions and low ascent structures, RCC development can
be better. Since composite development is substantially stiffer so came about into pulling in
expansive measure of seismic powers thus it isn't reasonable for these conditions.
Furthermore, Steel development is demonstrating similarly more distortions and less
solidness coming about into less helpful development.

2.2.2 Rajendra R. Bhoir, Prof. Mahesh Bagade (July 2016) [1] In this paper two
residential G+15 storied composite and RCC structure are broke down and planned in ETAB
programming with two distinctive story statures 3m and 4m. It is discovered that the
profundity of bars in composite structure is lesser than of RCC structure, which results to
likewise decrease the sizes of segments in composite structure. it is additionally observed that
the solid and steel utilization in composite structure is less however as they are utilizing hot
moved segments the auxiliary steel utilization is expanded. They infer that composite activity
builds the heap conveying limit and firmness by elements of around 2 and 3.5 separately.
They reason that composite structure demonstrated more conservative.

2.2.3 Renavikar Aniket, Suryawanshi Yogesh (July 2016) [20]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.
2.2.4 Murtuza S. Aainawala (June 2016) [7]He assess and think about the seismic
execution of G+15 story made up of RCC and composite structures by ETABS 2015
programming. Both steel and solid composite structures having concrete filled steel tube and
RCC structures were having delicate story at ground level, structures were situated in the
locale of quake zone IV on a medium soil. Equal static and reaction range strategy is utilized
for investigation. Story float, Displacement, self weight, twisting minute and shear drive, are
considered as parameters. At the point when analyzed composite structures indicates
preferred execution over RCC.
2.2.5 Abhishek Sanjay Mahajan, Laxman G. Kalurkar (April 2016) [15] The RCC
Structure is no longer suitable because of increased dead load, span rejection and less
stiffness. There is great potential for increasing volume of steel in construction .The
percentage of steel can be increased with the use of steel-concrete composite sections. 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 analyzed 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 analyzing for “Non-linear
static analysis the performance point for the FEC is significantly much more as compared to
the RCC model.

2.2.6 Shweta A. Wagh, Dr. U. P. Waghe (April 2014) [18]they did Comparative Study of
R.C.C and Steel Concrete Composite Structures. Steel solid composite development has
increased wide acknowledgment worldwide as an other option to unadulterated steel and
unadulterated solid development. In this paper investigation of four different multi-storeyed
business structures i.e. G+12, G+16, G+20, G+24 are examined by utilizing STAAD-Pro
programming. Where plan and cost estimation is done utilizing MS-Excel programming and
from acquired outcome correlation can be made amongst R.C.C and composite structure.
They reason that composite basic framework demonstrated more efficient if there should
arise an occurrence of tall structures and quality and serviceability criteria are fulfilled
completely.

2.2.7 A. Sattainathan Sharma, R. Anjughap Priya, R. Thirugnanam and P. Rathna

Priya (January 2016) [2] did Comparative Study on Multi-story Structure of R.C.C and
Composite Material utilizing ETAB 2013 for the g+20 story building (Plan measurement 30
X 24 m), They infer that The removal (diversion) and story float in R.C.C. Structure is not as
much as composite structure yet are in passable breaking point as endorsed by the codal
arrangements. It is because of the adaptability of composite structure when contrasted with
RCC structures. Dead weight is 20-25% lessens thus, seismic power is 15-20% less as
contrast with RCC. The Stiffness of the composite structure is discovered more prominent
when contrasted and RCC structure. Presents work demonstrates that by utilizing Concrete
Filled Steel Tubular (CFST) section in plan of tall buildings gives great outcomes when
contrasted with R.C.C and traditional steel building and furthermore monetarily fill in as a
superior answer for tall structures. Weight of composite structure is low when contrasted
with R.C.C. structure bringing about lessening of foundation cost. For tall building
structures, composite structures are observed to be the best method of development.

2.2.8 Mr. Nitish A. Mohite, Mr. P.K.Joshi, Dr. W. N. Deulkar (October 2015) [17] they
did Comparative Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete-Composite (B + G + 11 Story)
Building. Steel-solid composite structures are framed by interfacing the steel pillars with
solid piece or profiled deck section with the assistance of mechanical shear connectors so
chunk and bar go about as a solitary unit. In this paper, choices of development of
(B+G+11storey) business building, arranged in Kolhapur, with steel-solid composite and
RCC are contemplated and contrasted and each other. Identical straight Static Method of
Analysis clarified in ETABS variant 15 programming is utilized and comes about are looked
at for changed parameters. Near parameter incorporates rooftop diversions, base shear, story
floats, for the building and hub powers and twisting minutes for segment's and bars at various
level. It is watched that steel-solid composite building is observed to be more sheltered and
temperate and better choice.

2.2.9 Deepak M Jirage, Prof. V.G. Sayagavi, Prof. N.G. Gore (September 2015)
[16]Steel-solid composite frameworks for structures are shaped by interfacing the steel pillar
to the solid chunk or profiled deck piece with the assistance of mechanical shear connectors
so they go about as a solitary unit. In the present work steel solid composite with RCC
choices are considered for relative investigation of G+20 story building which is arranged in
quake zone-IV and for tremor stacking, the arrangements of IS: 1893 (Part1)- 2002 is
considered. A 3D Modelling and examination of the structure are done with the assistance of
ETAB programming. They found that the base shear of Composite structure is lessened by
20% as contrasted and RCC structure. The hub compel in Composite structure is less as
contrast and RCC by 18%, in light of the fact that the self wt. of the RCC structure is more.
The day and age of Composite is more as contrast with RCC. Time required for development
of composite structure is less as contrast and RCC structure in light of the fact that no frame
work is required. When all is said in done, composite structure demonstrated more prudent.

2.2.10Varsha Patil, Shilpa Kewate (August 2015) [9]RCC and steel are the materials that
are for the most part utilized as a part of the confining framework for the majority of the
building. Steel individuals have the benefits of high elasticity and flexibility, while solid
individuals have the upsides of high compressive quality and solidness. Composite
individuals join steel and cement, bringing about a part that has the helpful characteristics of
the two materials. The examination depends on basic conduct of Composite, RCC and Steel
structure when subjected to seismic tremor. In this RCC, steel and composite materials are
considered for near investigation of G+5 story business building which is arranged in seismic
tremor zone III, The arrangements of IS:1893 (Part 1) is considered. A 3D demonstrating and
investigation of the structure are done with the assistance of ETABS 2013 programming.
Comparable static investigation and Response range examination are done on every one of
the three structures. The outcomes are analyzed as far as base shear, Lateral power
circulation, most extreme removal, Time period and recurrence, and found that composite
structure gives better execution contrast with RCC and steel.

2.2.11 Umesh P. Patil, Suryanarayana M (June-2015) [21] Contrasting with RCC

structure, steel solid composite framework are by and large more famous because of the
different focal points they offer. Both speed and economy can be accomplished in the event
of composite frameworks. An endeavour was made in this paper to assess and look at the
seismic execution of G+ 15 story made of RCC and composite structure. ETABS 2013
programming was utilized for the reason. Both steel and solid composite structures and RCC
structures were having delicate story at ground level; structures were situated in the locale of
seismic tremor zone III on a medium soil. Proportionate static and reaction range technique is
utilized for examination. Story float, self weight, twisting minute and shear compel, are
considered as parameters. At the point when analyzed composite structures demonstrates
preferable execution over RCC.

2.2.12 Prasad Kolhe, Prof. Rakesh Shinde (May 2015) [14]Time History Analysis (THA)
is a well ordered investigation of the dynamic reaction of a non straight structure to a
predetermined stacking that may fluctuate with time. In this, time history of agent tremor is
utilized to decide the seismic reaction of a structure under unique stacking. In this work steel
segments and composite areas (steel + concrete) are considered for similar investigation of
skyscraper private working in seismic tremor zone IV. For investigation reason Time History
Method is utilized. In this work same arrangement is utilized for examination. Load mixes
are taken from IS code. After investigation they presume that Composite casing has the most
reduced estimations of story float in light of its firmness. The distinctions in story float for
various stories along X and Y course are attributable to introduction of segment segments.
Snapshots of dormancy of segment areas are distinctive in the two bearings. Base shear gets
decreased by 10% for Steel outline in contrast with the Composite casing.

2.2.13 Vaishali Ambe, Dr. Savita Maru (January 2015) [13]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.

2.2.14 Jeeva K, Prof.G.Augustine Maniraj Pandian (2015) [11]Composite structure

consisting of steel and concrete elements aims at overcoming the disadvantages of concrete’s
low tensile strength and steel’s susceptibility to corrosion and fire. 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. Weakling investigation empowers
one to foresee the most extreme uprooting and base shear in the structure at the skirt of
crumple; it additionally shows the day and age at which the structure accomplishes non-
linearity arrange; target relocation esteems and float are likewise found. The above
parameters realistic under weakling investigation are contrasted and that of direct reaction
range examination. The outcomes show that SRC structures are more adaptable and they
have high dislodging esteems along longitudinal bearing; however along the horizontal
heading the composite structures have bring down removal and float esteems contrasted with
steel structures. G+10 story steel structures are found to endure greatest uprooting and bases
shear.

2.2.15 Aniket Sijaria, Prof. Anubhav Rai , Prof Y.K. Bajpai (June– 2014) [8] they did
Planning, Analysis, Design & Cost Comparison of an Institutional Building with steel-
concrete composite construction. The proposition structure is a G+5 building (56.3 m x
31.94m) With 3.658 m as the tallness of each floor. The Analysis and configuration includes
the structure arranging, stack computation, investigation it by 2D demonstrating utilizing
STAAD-Pro 2003, outline of composite floors and sections, plan of steel bars and outline of
establishment. Examination has been improved the situation different load mixes including
seismic load, wind stack, and so forth according to the IS Code of Practice. The undertaking
additionally includes examination and outline of a proportional R.C.C. structure with the goal
that a cost correlation can be made between a steel-solid composite structure and an equal
R.C.C. structure. After definite examination they come to realize that the structure having
composite bar is demonstrated 82.36% more temperate than the RCC pillar.
 2.2.16 Mahesh Suresh Kumawat, L G Kalurkar (May 2014) [4] 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
In transverse direction 41-58 % decreases
Lateral displacement In longitudinal direction 37-57 % decreases
In transverse direction 40-66 % decreases
Twisting moment In longitudinal direction 39-65 % decreases
In transverse direction 31-47 % decreases
Shear force in ext column In longitudinal direction 30-45 % decreases
frequency - 10-17 % increases
Time period - 14-29 % decreases

2.2.17 Bhavin H. Zaveri, Jasmin A. Gadhiya, Hitesh K. Dhameliya (January 2016) [18]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 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.
2.2.18 Anamika Tedia, Dr. Savita Maru (Jan. 2014) [10] Steel-solid composite
development implies steel area encased in concrete for sections and the solid piece or
profiled deck chunk is associated with the steel pillar with the assistance of mechanical shear
connectors so they go about as a solitary unit..Steel-solid composite with R.C.C. alternatives
are considered for near investigation of G+5 story office working with 3.658 m stature,
which is arranged in seismic tremor zone III(Indore)& wind speed 50 m/s. The general
arrangement measurement of the building is 56.3 m x 31.94 m. Comparable Static Method of
Analysis is utilized. For displaying of Composite and R.C.C. structures, STAAD-expert
programming is utilized and the outcomes are analyzed; and it is discovered that composite
structure more prudent. In this, the cost correlation uncovers that Steel-Concrete composite
outline structure is all the more expensive, decrease in coordinate expenses of steel-
composite structure coming about because of rapid erection will influence Steel-to solid
Composite structure monetarily suitable. Further, under seismic tremor contemplations in
view of the intrinsic pliability attributes, Steel-Concrete structure will perform superior to a
customary R.C.C. structure.

2.2.19 Prof. S. S. Charantimath, Prof. Swapnil B.Cholekar, Manjunath M. Birje (2014)

[6] for medium to tall structures R.C.C structure is never again monetary as a result of
expanded dead load, less solidness, traverse confinement and dangerous formwork. The
Composite structures are the best answer for skyscraper structure when contrasted with
R.C.C structure. The present paper is an endeavour to ponder the condition of craft of seismic
execution assessment of RCC and composite building. a systematic investigation on the
auxiliary conduct of RCC and composite tall structure (G+10, G+20, G+30) having plan
measurement of 30 m x 24 meter is under taken. The parameters considered are removals,
pivotal powers, base shear and regular period. The 3D examination has been completed
utilizing basic investigation programming ETABS 2013 and the outcomes, for example, most
extreme estimations of relocations, pivotal powers, base shear and normal periods are
discovered by examination. They infer that there is a diminishment in the aggregate weight
of the Composite confined structure as the dead weight of a composite structure is less
contrasted with a R.C.C. structure, it is subjected to less measure of powers actuated because
of the quake. Obviously the nodal removals in a composite structure, by both the strategies
for seismic investigation, contrasted with a R.C.C. structure in all the 3 worldwide bearings
are less which is because of the higher solidness of individuals in a composite structure
contrasted with a RCC structure. As the sizes of the segment individuals from R.C.C choice
to the composite choice decreases pivotal powers in section have been diminished in
Composite confined structure when contrasted with RCC encircled structure. Composite
structures are more sparing than that of RCC structure. Expedient development encourages
snappier profit for the put capital and advantages regarding rent.

2.2.20 Nitin m. Warade1, P. J. Salunke (December, 2013) [3] 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 Strength,
Costs, and Time Period requirements. There is no requirement for formwork on the grounds
that the steel shaft can manage the self weight of steel and cement, without anyone else's
input or with the help of a couple of transitory props. Additionally this paper manages the
outline of composite working with settled base. In this paper seismic investigation of a multi
level auto stop is influenced utilizing distinctive development material, to like Concrete,
Structural steel and Composite of Structural Steel and Concrete. Impact of each building is
examined as for day and age, base shear, add up to dead load and most essential cost of
various plans

2.2.21 D. R. Panchal and P. M. Marathe (December, 2011) [5]Steel-solid composite

frameworks for structures are shaped by associating the steel bar to the solid piece or profiled
deck section with the assistance of mechanical shear connectors so they go about as a solitary
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
Axial force (in column) 46% reduces 7% reduces
In x dir. 34% reduces 5% increases
Bending
In y dir. 25% reduces 26% reduces
force

In all the options the values of story displacements are within the permissible limits as per
code limits. Steel and composite structure gives greater pliability to the structure when
contrasted with the R.C.C. which is most appropriate under the impact of parallel powers.
Add up to sparing in the composite alternative when contrasted with the R.C.C. brings about
10 % so as with Steel it will be 6-7%.
 Chapter 3 Aspect of composite structure
3.1 Introduction

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.
 3.2 Composite Structures

Composite construction in steel and concrete combines the better 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 Advantages 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.
 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 based on life cycle cost analysis because steel structure can be maintained
easily and less frequent repairmen is required for steel structure.
 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.
 Cost of formwork is lower compared to RCC construction.
 Cost of handling and transportation is minimized because major part of the structure is fabricated
in workshop.
 The steel and steel concrete composite construction is more 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.

3.2.2Disadvantages 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 fundamental for steel solid composite development as they incorporate
the pressure limit of upheld solid chunk with supporting steel pillars/braces to enhance the
heap conveying limit and in addition general unbending nature. In spite of the fact that steel
to solid bond may enable shear to exchange between the two to certain degree, yet it is
dismissed according to the code due to its vulnerability. All codes along these lines,
determine positive connectors at the interface of steel and concrete.mn is not as much as the
region involved by the RCC section.

The best fibre of the base pillar experiences slip in respect to the base fibre of the best bar.
The slip strain is most extreme at mid traverse and slip and slip is zero while at bolsters slip
strain is zero while slip is greatest.
 Fig 3.1 slip and slip strain

Uplift

Vertical separation between the members occurs if the loading is applied at lower edge of beam.
The torsion stiffness of reinforced concrete slab forming flanges of the composite beam with and
tri axial state of stress in vicinity of shear connector also tend to cause uplift at the interface.

As appeared in fig. On the off chance that the flexural unbending nature of AB is bigger even by
10% than that of CD, the entire load on AB is exchanged to CD at An and B with a partition of
the bars between these two focuses. in the event that AB Was associated with CD, there will be
Uplift powers at mid traverse. This exhibits shear connectors are to be planned to offer insurance
from slip and furthermore raise.

Fig 3.2 uplift behaviour

Types of Shear Connectors

The aggregate shear constrain at the interface between a solid section and steel shaft is roughly
eight times the aggregate load conveyed by the bar. Subsequently, mechanical shear connectors
are required at the steel-solid interface. These connectors are intended to (a) transmit longitudinal
shear along the interface, and (b) avert partition of steel bar and solid section at the interface.

In this way, mechanical shear connectors are given to transmit the flat shear between the steel
bar and the solid chunk, overlooking the impact 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 primary sorts of shear connectors; inflexible shear connectors, adaptable shear
connectors and safe haven shear connectors. These are explained below:

Rigid shear connectors

As the name suggests, these connectors are solid and they manage just a little twisting while at
the same time opposing the shear drive. They get their protection from bearing, weight on the
solid, and flop because of smashing of cement. Short bars, points, T-segments are regular cases
of this sort of connectors. Additionally dock gadgets like hooped bars are appended with these
connectors to avoid vertical detachment. This type of connectors is shown in Fig 2.4

Flexible Shear Connectors

Adaptable shear connectors comprise of headed studs, channels or tees welded to the best spine
of the steel pillars go under this class. They determine their anxiety protection through twisting
and experience vast distortion before disappointment. Run of the mill adaptable connectors are
appeared in Fig 2.4. The stud connectors are the sorts utilized widely. The shank and the weld
neckline contiguous steel shaft oppose the shear loads though the head opposes the elevate.

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.
 Fig. 3.3 typical shear connectors as per IS: 11384

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.

Fig 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

Fig. 3.5 Load bearing mechanism of shear connectors

Over the span of opposing the shear stack, the connectors twist and exchange the heap to
concrete through bearing. The scattering of load can cause pliable breaks in concrete by tearing,
shear and part activity.

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. Finish or
fragmented cooperation between the solid piece and the steel segment brings about an all the
more firm or less-hardened composite bar. Fragmented cooperation emerges when adaptable
connectors are utilized and slip (relative uprooting) happens at the steel solid interface.

Composite creases are regularly outlined under the suspicion that the un-propped steel shaft
bolsters the heaviness of the auxiliary steel and wet cement in addition to development loads. It
might, along these lines, be chosen for reasons of economy to give just adequate connectors to
grow enough composite activity to help the heaps connected a while later.

This approach brings about extensively less number of connectors than are required to empower
the most extreme bowing protection of the composite pillar to be come to. In any case, the
utilization of such incomplete shear association brings about diminished protection and
solidness.

Degree of interaction

At the point when no slip happens between the Concrete chunk and the supporting steel shaft, it
is named as full association. As it were, the point at which the twisting quality of a bar does not
increment with the expansion of further Connectors at the steel-solid interface, it is viewed as
that the entire shear association has been accomplished. By and by some slip will dependably
happen and the term full communication is utilized where it is viewed as that the impacts of slip
between the solid rib and steel bar might be ignored in the outline. Fractional collaboration infers
that slip happens at the interface between the solid spine and the steel shaft, and thus it causes a
brokenness of strain that must be considered in the investigation.

In halfway shear association the quantity of connectors gave is not as much as that required to
accomplish finish shear association Partial shear association ought not be considered as
unacceptable for the reason for which they are given. In spite of the fact that not passable
according to Indian Standard, fractional shear association is of intrigue where the twisting quality
of the specific pillar require not be completely used.

Basic design considerations

The investigation of composite area is influenced utilizing Limit to condition of fall strategy. IS:
11384-1985 code manages the outline and development of just basically upheld composite
pillars. In this manner, the technique for configuration recommended in EC 4 is likewise alluded
alongside IS: 11384.

Section Classification

A definitive quality of composite area is resolved from its plastic limit, gave the components of
the steel cross segment don't fall in the semi-minimized or thin class. The serviceability is
checked utilizing flexible investigation, as the structure will stay versatile under Service
stacking. Full shear association guarantees that full minute limit of the area creates. In
incomplete shear association, albeit full minute limit of the pillar can't be accomplished, the
outline should be satisfactory to [resist the connected stacking. This plan is now and again
favoured because of economy accomplished through the lessened number of shear connectors to
be welded at site.

Areas are ordered relying upon their minute pivot attributes. Nearby clasping of components of a
steel area decreases its ability. In light of nearby clasping, the capacity of an I spine or web to
oppose pressure relies upon its slimness, spoke to by its thickness proportion. The impact of
neighbourhood clasping is along these lines dealt with in configuration, by constraining the
thinness proportion of the components i.e. web and pressure spine. The codes likewise the
𝐛
constraining width-thickness proportion𝛃 = for [component plates, which enables the
𝐭

classification to be made. The moment capacity of section shown in fig.

 Fig. 3.6 moment capacities of section

Span to depth ratio

Traverse to profundity proportion confinements for which the serviceability criteria will be
regarded to be fulfilled by 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 bar goes about as a T-bar with the solid section as its spine. The bowing worry in
the solid spine is found to fluctuate along the broadness of the rib as in Fig 3.6, because of the
shear slack impact. This wonder is considered by supplanting the genuine broadness of rib (B)
with a powerful expansiveness (biff), to such an extent that the region FGHIJ almost measures
up to the region ACDE. Research in light of flexible hypothesis has demonstrated that the
proportion of the viable expansiveness of chunk to genuine broadness (biff/B) is an element of
the kind of stacking, bolster condition, and the area under thought. For configuration reason a
part of the bar traverse (20% - 33%) is taken as the viable expansiveness of the piece.

Fig. 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 (E.) 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 recommended a particular proportion of 15 for live load and 30 for dead
load, for versatile investigation of segment. It is to be noticed that a higher estimation of
measured proportion for dead load considers the bigger crawl strain of cement for supported
stacking. In EC 4 the versatile modulus of cement for long haul loads is taken as 33% of the
fleeting worth and for typical weight concrete, the secluded proportion is taken as 6.5 for here
and now stacking and 20 for long haul stacking.

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 Partial safety factors as per the proposed revisions to IS: 800&IS: 456- 2000.

load As per the proposed revisions to As per the proposed revisions to

IS: 800 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 utilizing profiled sheet decking have turned out to be exceptionally prevalent in
the West for elevated structures. Composite deck sections are for the most part focused where the
solid floor must be finished rapidly and where medium level of flame assurance to steel work is
adequate. A normal composite floor framework utilizing profiled sheets is appeared in Fig. There
is directly no Indian standard covering the plan of composite floor framework utilizing profiled
sheeting.

Fig. 3.8 profile decking

In composite floors, the helper direct resembles an invigorated strong segment, with the steel
sheeting going about as the weight bolster. The essential fundamental and distinctive preferences
of using composite floors with profiled steel decking craftsmanship:

Venture subsidizes in steel weight are normally 30 % to half completed non-composite

construction. Greater robustness of composite columns realizes shallower profundities for a
comparable navigate. In this way bring down story statures are palatable achieving speculation
finances in cladding costs, diminishing in wind stacking and save finances in foundation costs
Faster rate of construction. The steel decking plays out different parts, for instance,

 It bolsters loads amid development and goes about as a working stage.

  It creates satisfactory composite activity with cement to oppose the forced stacking.
 It moves in-plane stacking by stomach activity to vertical propping or shear dividers.
 It balances out the pressure spines of the shafts against horizontal clasping, until the point
when concrete solidifies.
 It diminishes the volume of cement in pressure zone.
 It circulates shrinkage strains, along these lines forestalling genuine breaking of cement.

Unnecessary bonding in long traverse composite floors might be maintained a strategic

distance from by giving required Propping. Generally the profiled sheet avoids impressively
requiring extra cement at the middle that may add to the cementing cost.

The Structural Elements

Stud shear connectors are perpetually utilized as a part of composite floors. Stud shear
connectors are welded through the sheeting on to the best spine of the shaft. Protection
prerequisites for flame as a rule control the section thickness over the profile. Thickness esteems
in the vicinity of 65 and 120 min are adequate to give a fire rating of up to 2 hours. Lightweight
cement is for the most part favoured in composite floors because of lessened weight on profiled
sheets and upgraded tire-protection.

Profiled Sheet Decking

The steel deck is regularly moved into the coveted profile from 22G (0.70 min) to 16G (1.6 mm)
excited loop. It is profiled to such an extent that the profile statures are for the most part in the
scope of 40-60 mm while higher profundity of 85 mm is likewise accessible. The run of the mill
trough width lies between .150 to 350 mm. For the most part, ranges of the request of 2.5 m to
3.5m between the shafts are picked and the pillars are intended to traverse between 6 m to 12 m.
There are two surely understood non specific sorts of profiles.

 Dovetail profile
 Trapezoidal profile with web indentations
Profiled deck shapes are picked in view of the capacity to improve the bond at the steel-solid
interface and giving dependability while supporting wet concrete and other development loads.

Spaces and bulges into the rib prepare the bearing protection notwithstanding attachment and
furthermore give the shear move in composite sections.

3.3.4 Composite Column

A composite part subjected chiefly to pressure and bowing is called as composite section. At
exhibit, there is no Indian Standard covering the plan of composite segments. The technique for
configuration recommended in this section to a great extent takes after EC4, which consolidates
the most recent research on composite development.

Indian Standards for composite development (IS: 11384-1985) does not make a particular
reference to composite sections. The arrangements Contained in IS: 456 - 2000 are regularly
summoned for plan of composite structures.

The solid and steel are consolidated in such a design, to the point that the benefits of both the
materials are used successfully in composite segment. There are many points of interest related
1%ith the utilization of steel-solid composite segments: little cross-areas, for instance, can be
intended to withstand high loads; likewise. Areas with various protections, But indistinguishable
outer measurements can be created by differing steel region, solid quality and extra support.
 Fig 3.9 typical cross section of composite columns and notation

In this manner the external measurement of a segment can be held consistent over various floors
in a building, disentangling structural itemizing. Additionally steel-solid composite individuals
help to enhance the imperviousness to fire. A steel-solid composite segment comprises of either
a solid. encased hot-moved steel segment or a solid filled tubular area of hot-moved steel and is
for the most part utilized as a heap bearing part in a composite surrounded structure.

In a composite segment both the steel and cement would oppose the outside, stacking by
communicating together by security and rubbing. Extra support in the solid encasement
counteracts unreasonable spelling of cement both under typical load and fire conditions.

Amid development, exposed steel segments bolster the underlying development loads, including
the heaviness of structure amid development. Concrete is later thrown around the steel segment,
or worked inside the tubular segments. The lighter weight and higher quality of steel allow the
utilization of littler and lighter establishments. The consequent solid expansion empowers the
building edge as far as possible the influence and horizontal avoidances.

By utilizing composite sections, the speed of development can be expanded and it is conceivable
to erect the structures in most productive way with noteworthy monetary focal points over either
unadulterated auxiliary steel ci fortified solid choices.
Aside from speed and economy, the accompanying other critical points of interest can be
accomplished. Increased strength for a given cross sectional dimension.

•Increased firmness, prompting lessened thinness and expanded clasping protection.

• Fire protection on account of cement encased segments is greatly improved.

•Identical cross areas with various load and minute protections can be created by shifting steel
thickness.
 Chapter 4 problem formulation & software implementation
In this chapter procedure for modeling problem structures using E tabs is discussed, also how
static, modal and dynamic response spectrum analysis is performed using E tabs is described.
Special modeling consideration for modeling of RCC shear wall, composite deck slab, response
spectrum analysis are shown briefly.

4.1 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 E tabs 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)

4.1.1 Material data

Table 4.1 material data

material Weight Modulus of Shear Poisson Coeffi. Of

( KN/M³) elasticity (E) modulus (G) ratio thermal

expansion
(KN/M²)

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 7 x𝟏𝟎−𝟔

4.1.2 GEOMETRICAL DATA

Type of building : Commercial building

Height of building : 46.5 m ( including foundation depth 4.5 m )

Storey Height of building : 3.5 m

Load combination:

Table 4.2 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 III ) and for earthquake IS : 1893 – 2002.
Earthquake load is applied in both x and y direction.
 Figure 4.1 plan view of building

Figure 4.2 beam grid of typical floor plan

4.1.3 MEMBER SIZES FOR PARTICULAR BUILDINGS

Table 4.3 RCC structure member size

REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBER SIZE

RCC COLUMN RCC BEAM

Foundation to ground floor 0.85 m x 0.85 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.6 m

ground floor to 4th floor 0.85 m x 0.85 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.53 m

Secondary beam 0.3 m x 0.45 m

5th floor to 8th floor 0.7 m x 0.7 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.53 m

Secondary beam 0.3 m x 0.45 m

9th floor to 12th floor 0.53 m x 0.53 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.45 m

Secondary 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

Secondary beam 0.3 m x 0.45 m

Table 4.4 steel structure member size

STEEL MEMBER SIZE

COLUMN BEAM

Foundation to ground 0.7 m x 0.7 m Main beam 0.3 m x 0.6 m

floor
Secondary beam -

Ground floor to 4th floor UC 356x 406 x 340 with Main beam UB 457 x 191 x 98
25 mm thick cover plates
on both the sides. Secondary beam UB 406 x 178 x 74
5th floor to 8th floor UC 356x 406 x 287 with Main beam UB 457 x 191 x 89
25 mm thick cover plates
on both the sides. Secondary beam UB 406 x 178 x 54

9th floor to 12th floor UC 356x 406 x 129 with Main beam UB 457 x 191 x 82
25 mm thick cover plates
on both the sides. Secondary beam UB 356 x 171 x 67

Stairs cabin UC 356x 406 x 129 with Main beam UB 457 x 152 x 60
25 mm thick cover plates
on both the sides. Secondary beam UB 356 x 171 x 67

Table 4.5 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
Secondary beam -
UC 254x 254 x 132 with 8 nos. of
20 mm dia. peripheral
reinforcement.

ground floor to 0.53 x 0.53 m Main beam: UB 457 x 191 x 89

4th floor with 25 mm cover plate
Concrete encased with embedded
UC 254x 254 x 107 with 8 nos. of Secondary beam:
20 mm dia. peripheral
reinforcement. UB 533 x 210 x 101

5th floor to 8th 0.45 x 0.45 m Main beam: UB 457 x 191 x 89

floor Concrete encased with embedded with 25 mm cover plate
UC 254x 254 x 89 with 8 nos. of 20 Secondary beam:
mm dia. 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

floor Concrete encased with embedded with 25 mm cover plate
 UC 254x 254 x 73 with 8 nos. of 20 Secondary beam:
mm dia. peripheral reinforcement.
UB 533 x 210 x 101

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

Concrete encased with embedded with 25 mm cover plate
UC 254x 254 x 73 with 8 nos. of 20 Secondary beam:
mm dia. peripheral reinforcement.
UB 533 x 210 x 101

SHEAR STUD

Type Headed stud

material Fe 540 B ( 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

4.1.4 GENERAL MEMBER SIZE FOR ALL TYPE OF BUILDING

Floor & Stair slab : 125 mm

Lift slab : 150 mm

 Shear wall : 300 mm

4.2 About E tabs

E tabs software is exclusively made for modeling, analysis and design of buildings. Various
facilities in the E tabs are listed below

 E tabs provide object based modeling. it takes slab as area object, column, beam, brace as
a line object and support, mass, loads as point objects.
 E tabs has feature known as similar story. By which similar stories can be edited and
modeled simultaneously. Due to which building is modeled very speedily.
 E tab scan perform various P-delta, Response Spectrum, Static Non-linear, Time history,
Construction sequence and many more analysis with good graphics.
 E tabs automates templates for typical structures like steel deck, waffle slab, flat stab,
Ribbed Slab etc.
 E tabs can do optimization of steel section.
 E tabs has a facility to design composite beam. Also composite deck can be modeled in E
tabs.
 E tabs has powerful facility of Section designer. By which different types of composite
sections can be made easily.

4.3 software validation

For verification of software a G+5 story building example is taken from nice website. The results
of which are compared with the results of E tabs.

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
E tabs. These results are found satisfactory.
 Figure 4.3 software validation problem

Figure 4.4 software validation problem plan layout & elevation

Comparison of results

Table 4.5 comparison of software verification result

story shear story displacement story drifts

storey manual E tabs manual E tabs manual E tabs

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 E tabs result are well matched with the taken example result.

4.4modeling of building using E tabs

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.
4.4.1 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 E tabs 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.

4.4.2 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

4.4.3 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 4.5 defining material properties in E tabs

 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 E tabs. 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 E
tabs. Direction of deck is always transverse to the span. Slab and deck both are defined as
a rigid diaphragm.
Figure 4.6 steel columns in section designer

Figure 4.7defining of slab in E tabs

 Figure 4.8 defining of load cases in E tabs

 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.

4.5response spectrum analysis in E tabs

 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 e tabs as shown in fig. 5.8.
Damping value for RCC is taken 5% and for steel is taken as 2%.

Figure 4.9 defining response spectrum function in E tabs

 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 4.10 defining and scaling response spectrum load in Etabs

 Chapter 5 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 comparable parallel power method the extent of powers depends on an estimation of the
central time frame and on dissemination of powers, as given by basic equation in IS 1893-2002.

In the dynamic investigation technique the sidelong powers depend on the properties of the
normal vibration methods of the building, which are controlled by the dissemination of mass and
solidness over stature. 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.

5.1 Storey shear, Storey moment, Storey displacement and storey stiffness

5.1.1 Seismic weight:-

Seismic weight of the RCC, steel and composite building is 120888.58KN, 105529.92 KN, and 107

339.48 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.
 Table 5.1 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
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

Fig 5.1weight of the structure

5.1.2 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 5.2 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
rcc
1000
steel
500
composite
0

Storey No.

Fig 5.2 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

Fig 5.3 comparison of storey shear for static and dynamic analysis

Table 5.3 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 5.2)

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 5.4 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 5.5 storey moment in x direction (KN-m)

STOREY MOMENT ( in x direction) (KN-m)

structure RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
storey static dynamic static dynamic static dynamic
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

100000
Storey Moment (KN-m)

80000

60000
rcc
40000
steel
20000 composite
0

Storey No.

Fig 5.4 storey moment for static analysis

120000

100000

80000 rcc static

60000 rcc dynamic

steel static
40000
steel dynamic
20000
composite static
0 composite dynamic
terrace
storey
Stairs cabin

Story7
Story9
Story8

Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
Story10
story 11

Fig 5.5storey moment for static and dynamic analysis

Table 5.6 comparison of storey moment for static and dynamic analysis

In x direction (in %)

Storey RCC STEEL COMPOSITE

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 5.4)

Table 5.7 comparison of storey moment with respect to RCC In x direction (in %)

Static analysis Dynamic analysis

Storey
Steel Composite Steel Composite
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 5.8 storey moment in y direction (KN-m)

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.

Fig 5.6 storey moment for static and dynamic analysis in y dir.

5.1.3 Storey displacement

Storey drift is calculated from the storey displacement; more storey displacement indicates less
stiffness of structure.

Table 5.9 maximum storey displacement in x direction (mm)

STOREY DISPLACEMENT ( in x direction) (mm)

STRUCTURE RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
storey static dynamic static dynamic static dynamic
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
20 RCC
15
STEEL
10
5 COMPOSITE
0

Storey no.

Fig 5.7 maximum storey displacement for static analysis in x direction

Table 5.10 comparison of storey displacement for static and dynamic analysis

In x direction (in %)

Storey RCC STEEL COMPOSITE

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 5.11 comparison of storey displacement with respect to RCC building

In x direction (in %)

Static analysis Dynamic analysis

Storey
Steel Composite Steel Composite
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 5.12 maximum storey displacement in y direction (mm)

STOREY DISPLACEMENT ( in y direction) (mm)

structure RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
storey static dynamic static dynamic static dynamic
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
composite
0

Storey No.

Fig 5.7 maximum storey displacement for static and dynamic analysis in y direction

5.1.4 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 5.13 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(story 12) 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 Stiffness (KN/m)

3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000 rcc
1000000
500000 steel
0
composite

Storey No.

Fig 5.8 storey stiffness for static analysis

4000000
3500000
3000000 rcc static
2500000
rcc dynamic
2000000
1500000 steel static
1000000
500000 steel dynamic
0
composite static
composite dynamic

Fig 5.9 storey stiffness for static and dynamic analysis

Table 5.14 comparison of storey stiffness with respect to RCC in x direction (in %)

Static analysis Dynamic analysis

Storey
Steel Composite Steel Composite
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 5.13)

Table 5.15 storey stiffness in y direction (KN/m)

STOREY STIFNESS ( in y direction) (KN/m)

structure RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
storey static dynamic static dynamic static dynamic
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.

Fig 5.10 storey stiffness for static and dynamic analysis in y direction
5.2 Time Period, Frequency and Storey Drift

5.2.1 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 5.16 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
 3

2.5

Time period (sec.) 2

1.5 rcc
steel
1
composite
0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
modes

(A)

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

(B)
Fig 5.11 time period and frequency for different modes
5.2.2 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 5.17 storey drift in x direction (mm)

STOREY DRIFT ( in X direction) (mm)

structure RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
storey static dynamic static dynamic static dynamic
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
Storey drift (mm) 3
2.5
2
1.5 RCC
1 STEEL
0.5 COMPOSITE
0

Storey No.

Fig 5.12 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.

Fig 5.13 storey drift for dynamic analysis in x direction

 Table 5.18 comparison of storey drift for static and dynamic analysis

In x direction (in %)

Storey RCC STEEL COMPOSITE

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 5.16)

Table 5.19 comparison of storey drift with respect to RCC building In x direction
(in %)

Static analysis Dynamic analysis

Storey
Steel Composite Steel Composite
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
(Refer table 5.16)
 Table 5.20 storey drift in y direction (mm)

STOREY DRIFT ( in Y direction) (mm)

structure RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
storey static dynamic static dynamic static dynamic
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

5
Storey Drift (mm)

4
3
2
rcc
1
steel
0
composite

Storey No.

Fig 5.12 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.

Fig 5.13 storey drift for static and dynamic analysis in y direction

5.3 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 5.21 response spectrum accelerations

Response spectrum accelerations ( in x direction) (m/sec²)

structure RCC STEEL COMPOSITE
spectrum mode period acceleratio period acceleration period acceleration
n
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
RSAX 19 0.07 0.425 0.07 0.482 0.09 0.537
RSAX 20 0.07 0.409 0.07 0.471 0.08 0.531
 Chapter 6 conclusion and future scope

6.1 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.
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%.

Table 6.1 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.
6.2future 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.
 References
1. Bhavin H. Zaveri , Bhargav K.Panchotiya & Smit U. Patel, “parametric study of rcc, steel
andcomposite structures under seismic loading”, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology ,Volume 7, Issue 4, July-August 2016.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Murtuza S. Aainawala, “behaviour of g+15 r.c.c. and composite structure”, International
Journal of Innovative and Emerging Research in Eng., Volume 3, Sp. Issue 1, 2016.
5. 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.
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. 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.
8. Mr. Nitish A. Mohite, Mr. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Prof. 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.
20. 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.
21. D. R. Panchal & P. M. Marathe, “comparative study of r.c.c, steel and composite (g+30
storey) building”, institute of technology, Nirma University, 08-10 December 2011.
22. IS 456: 2000, “Code for practice of plain and reinforced concrete code of practice,
Bureau of Indian Standards”, New Delhi.
23. IS 1893: 2002, “Code for earthquake resistant design of structures- general provisions for
buildings, Part I, Bureau of Indian Standards”, New Delhi.
24. IS 800: 2007, “Indian Standard Code of practice for General Construction of Steel in
India, Bureau of Indian Standards”, New Delhi.
25. IS 11384:1985, “Code of Practice for Design of Composite Structure, Bureau of Indian
Standards”, New Delhi.
26. Euro code 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part 1-1: General rules
and “Composite structre of steel and concrete” second edition. by r. p. Johnson
27. “Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings: Steel and Composite Construction”.
By Bungale S. Taranath. 2vcw 8850 wearing coat ,