ABSTRACT

The major forces that acts on any structure and which can be the cause of major

disasters are earthquake and wind. Many researches all over the globe found that tall

structures are more vulnerable to disasters as compared to smaller structures. And are the

major sources of social, environmental degradation after disaster. To minimize the effect of

these major forces mentioned above we need to develop such techniques to make structures

more resistant thereby minimizing the damage to the society and minimize environmental

degradation. For any structure which is going to be constructed strength should be given

outmost importance. Honey comb structure is one of such techniques which is inspired by

beehives. Architects are been found more concerned about the aesthetic appearance of the

structure. And with the industrial development it is found that the faced systems are more

prevailing in the society. Honey comb structure is a type of structure which achieves both the

goals which by increasing the strength increases the esthetic appearance of the structure and

also is found environment friendly. Honeycomb structure is also found to be environment

friendly it imparts free light and ventilation to the structure. Such techniques in future should

be invested more money to save society and environment.

As honeycomb structure is a technique found more efficient on tall structures as per

the studies, In this project we have transformed a conventional type G+9 building into

honeycomb structure by using software STAAD Pro. And its seismic behavior has been

studied. All the load critical load cases which are taken into consideration while doing design

part of each individual member in practice are given outmost importance in this study in

order to get the more accurate comparison. The dynamic analysis of the structure is done by

both equivalent static and response spectrum method the response spectrum method as more

accurate method; the efficiency of the structure is studied on the response spectrum analysis.

KEYWORDS: STRENGHT, HONEYCOMB STRUCTURE, RESPONSE REDUCTION

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Number

Title

Page Number

1.1

Office building of Ministry of municipal affairs and agriculture in QATAR

1.2

Sino Steel International Plaza, China

1.3 Adres Harris bone inspired structure 3

3.1 The plan and column orientation of the structure 14

3.2 Variation in the hexagrid after optimization 16

3.3.1 3D view of both the types of structures used in analysis 18

3.3.2 Type of columns for all the types of structures at each floor 19

3.3.3

Type of beams for all the types of structures at each floor for comparison purpose
19

5.1 Variation of storey displacement of honeycomb structure,

optimized honeycomb structure, conventional type of structure

26

5.2 Variation of time period for different mode shapes conventional

structure honeycomb structure, optimized honeycomb structure

respectively

27

5.3.1 Variation of axial forces of all the outer columns in conventional

structure, honeycomb structure and optimized honeycomb

structure.

28

5.3.2 Variation of axial force in columns 29

5.3.2 Variation of axial forces of columns in conventional structure,

honeycomb structure and optimized honeycomb structure

29

5.3.3 Variation of axial force in columns 30

5.3.3 Variation of axial forces of columns in conventional structure,

honeycomb structure and optimized honeycomb structure

30

5.3.4 Variation of axial force in columns 31

5.3.4 Variation of axial forces of columns in conventional structure,

honeycomb structure and optimized honeycomb structure

31

5.4.1.1 Variation of forces at first floor beams 32

5.4.1.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 1st floor 33

5.4.1.2

Variation of shear force in Y direction at 1st floor 33

5.4.2.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 2nd floor 35

5.4.2.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 2st floor 35

5.4.3.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 3rd floor 37

5.4.3.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 3rd floor 37

5.44.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 4th floor 39

5.4.4.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 4th floor 39

5.4.5.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 5th floor 41

5.4.5.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 5th floor 41

5.4.6.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 6th floor 43

5.4.6.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 6th floor 43

5.4.7.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 7th floor 45

5.4.7.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 7th floor 45

5.4.8.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 8th floor 47

5.4.8.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 8th floor 47

5.4.9.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 9th floor 49

5.4.9.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 9th floor 49

5.5 Variation of Dead load of structures 50

5.6 Variation of Base shear of structures 51

LIST OF TABLES

Figure

Number

Name of Figure

Page Number

5.3.1 Variation of axial force in columns 28

5.3.2 Variation of axial force in columns 29

5.3.3 Variation of axial force in columns 30

5.3.4 Variation of axial force in columns 31

5.4.1.1 Variation of forces at first floor beams 32

5.4.2.1 Variation of forces at second floor beams 34

5.4.3.1 Variation of forces at third floor beams 36

5.4.4.1 Variation of forces at fourth floor beams 38

5.4.5.1 Variation of forces at fifth floor beams 40

5.4.6.1 Variation of forces at sixth floor beams 42

5.4.7.1 Variation of forces at seventh floor beams 44

5.4.8.1 Variation of forces at eighth floor beams 46

5.4.9.1 Variation of forces at ninth floor beams 48

5.5 Variation of Dead load of structures 50

5.6 Variation of Base shear of structures 51

NOMENCLATURE

Vb
L/C

DL

LL

EQRX

RIS

Base shear

Load combination

Deal load

Live load

Earthquake in x direction

Rigidified inflatable structures

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS‘

‘Comparative Study of Seismic Behavior of Honeycomb Structure with Conventional Structure by using
Staad Pro’, IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering ,

Volume 2 ,Issue 07, January 2016 ISSN (online): 2349-784X

‘Seismic behavior of honeycomb structure with conventional structure by using STAAD Pro’,IJSRD –
International journal of sceintific research and development (Accpeted)

INDEX

Sr. No. Contents Page No.

Abstract

List of figures

List of tables

Nomenclature

Publication

I
II

III

VI

VII

1. Introduction 1-5

1.1 Biomimetic structures

1.2 Need of research

1.3 Scope of project

1.4 Objective

References

2. Literature Review 6-14

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Literature review

2.3 Summary

References

11
12

3. Methodology 14-20

3.1 Details of the structure

3.1.1 Sizes of beam and columns and slabs used for analysis

3.1.2 Honeycomb (hexagrid) structure

3.1.3 Optimized of honeycomb hexgrid

3.2 Details of parameters for seismic analysis

3.2.1 Load combinations used in analysis as per IS 456:2000

3.3 Elevation details of the structures

References

14

15

15

15
16

16

17

20

4. Data collection and analysis 21-25

4.1 Loading

4.1.1 Imposed load

21

21

4.1.2 Dead load

4.1.3 Seismic loading

References

22

22

25

5. Results and Discussion 26-52

5.1 Storey displacement of the structures

5.2 Time period

5.3 Axial forces in columns

5.4 Comparison of bending moment and shear force in beams at

each floor

5.4.1Comparison of bending moment and shear force for beams at

first floor

5.4.2 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for beams

at second floor

5.4.3 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for beams

at third floor
5.4.4 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for beams

at fourth floor

5.4.5 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for beams

at fifth floor

5.4.6 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for beams

at sixth floor

5.4.7 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for beams

at seventh floor

5.4.8 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for beams

at eight floor

5.4.9 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for beams

at ninth floor

5.5 Dead load

5.6 Base shear

26

27

27

31

32

34

36
38

40

42

44

46

48

50

50

6. Conclusion 52 7. Future scope 54 8. References 55 9 Appendices 56

CHAPTER-01

INTRODUCTION
The major advantage of tall buildings is that these buildings uses land very efficiently. After the 80th
century the increase in tall structure construction had grown rapidly in the

entire world. These structures use land efficiently because in a very small area the numbers of

floors are more. With this advantage to increase in structural damages has increase due to the

variation in architectural property. According to the researches done the tall structures are

found to be more vulnerable to damage. And are found to be the major reasons for damage to

the society in natural disasters. Earthquake is the reasons behind the tall structures are

vulnerable to damage. The seismic forces that act on any structure is the reason for the

damage. The magnitude may not be the damage the damage is more due to the type of

structure as the intensity of damage varies with the structural strength. The aesthetic

appearance of structure is of more interest to the architects but the structural strength has to

be given outmost importance. With the increase in tall the structure construction the façade

system in industrial sector is more prevailing. Hexagrid structure is a newly innovated

structural system which has all the advantages a tall structure will need in an industrial sector.

The structure has great stiffness as far as the lateral loads are concerned. The idea of this

structure is basically evolved from the bee hives which is arranged in hexagonal pattern.

The structures which are inspired by nature are known as biomimetic structures. The

honeycomb structure is also mimicry of beehives. The main advantage of bee hive structure

is that it has a uniform distribution of load. The implementation of honeycomb structure can

save material up to 12%. The structure is thus light weight. And thus the earthquake forces by

virtue of its weight are considerably reduced with a larger difference.

1.1 Biomimetic structures

There are many structures that are the inspiration of structures in the nature. The

reason behind the construction of biomimetic structure is that the entire element that exists on
this earth are no different everything has some advantages. In nature we have load to learn

and implement from. There are many such buildings which are inspired by nature, some

buildings are inspired by trees, some are inspired by beehives, some are inspired by bird

skull. The building it is an excellent example of desert architecture. The building is name as

the office building of ministry of municipal affairs and agriculture which is constructed in

Qatar shown in figure 1.1, has the advantages of cactus buildings. The advantages associated

with this building are that it utilizes the shades of the sun on its window. Depending on the

intensity of the sun the windows can open and close to keep the heat to the building out of the

building. This is just similar to the cactus plant the way it performs transpiration during day

light and night time. Another example is the Sino steel international plaza in Tianjin, China;

shown in figure 1.2 this tall building has the advantages of the bee hives. The exoskeleton is

given to the structure in the form of bee hive. The different way of the bee hive is that it has

number of windows without obstructing the stiffness of the building the bee hive hexgrid is a

surface skin given to a bare structure which takes axial forces on seismic loadings. All the

lateral forces are greatly reduced by using this type of structural construction. The masonry

construction is totally removed from the outer side the wall is now replaced by the hexagrid.

Again an example of biomemitic structure is the Adres Harris, shown in figure 1.3it is a shell

which slab is inspired by the bird skull. The usage of bird skull like structure is that the fine

element of the shell acts as the beams and columns and distributed loads uniformly without

increase in the deflection of the slab of the shell and what we get out of this inspiration is the

uninterrupted area of the without interruption of column. The building used in this project is a

normal conventional type structure. to study the effect of beehive inspired hexagrid on the
buildings. The conventional type structure is going to be compared with the honeycombed

building after its transformation.

Figure:1.1 Office building of Ministry of municipal affairs and agriculture in QATAR

Figure 1. 2 Sino Steel International Plaza, China

Figure 1.3 Adres Harris bone inspired structure

1.2 Need of research

As per the literature study it is found that, tall structure development construction has grown

rapidly and caught everyone's attention in structural engineering. hexagrid system is one of

such developments Considering the disaster and vulnerability to disasters of tall structure

more efficient structural system has become the need of the society and environment. The

conventional type structural systems are not proved to be sufficiently reliable for tall

buildings in earthquake prone areas.

1.3 Scope of the project

These days it is found that more resources are been consumed by the construction of the

structure. The resources such as steel, cement, water are scares in nature. These scares

resources are now days more invested on for construction purpose. More investments are

done on high rise buildings. The aesthetic appearance of the building is given the out most

importance in this world. The structures on the other hand should be efficient. More natural

energy should be used. The technology in case off honeycomb structure is such a structural

systems with which increase in the aesthetic appearance reduces the structural response of the

structure. The natural resources mentioned above can be used very efficiently with this type

of structural systems. The members of the honeycomb structures distributes load uniformly

on beam and the loads are transferred uniformly. The loading on the structure will be

reduced as the dead weight of the structure is very less as compared to the honeycomb

structure. for such a structural systems if in future more investments are done the damage to

the environment and nature will be reduces to great extent and also materials would be

efficiently used. Conventional type structures with high rise buildings has shear walls which

increases the axial forces on columns and more material are used this can be replacement

with the hexgrids structure. In this case the cost of outer masonry wall will be reduced and

also the material shear wall will be less required comparatively.

1.4 Objectives 1. To transform the conventional type structure into biomimetic honeycomb structure by

using software STAAD pro (structural analysis and design software). 2. To determine  Storey
displacement  Time period  Bending moment, shear force of the structures beam and columns to

find the axial forces of both the type of structures the structure 3. To check from the response of the
both the type of structure and find which structures
has high efficiency in case of seismic loadings. 4. To check which of the structures has major
displacement subjected to the loading

conditions.

REFERENCES

[1]. Xu Ye Fu1,Ying Gao2, Ying Zhou3, Ziang Bing Yang4, Structural design of Sinosteel international
plaza, China construction design international,CTBUH 2012 9TH World

congress,Shanghai. [2]. Peyman AskariNejad1, Jose alfano2, Beehive (Hexagrid), New innovated
structural

building for tall buildings,CTBUH Seoul conference, 2011. [3]. Adrian Mahu, The end of skyscrapers. [4].
Michael Robert Patterson, Structural glass façade a unique building technology’ May

2008.

CHAPTER 02

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter we have studied and compared various literatures of different authors. Tall

structure world many researchers have been done by professionals all over the world. Some
of the project related research papers form national and international journals are studied

thoroughly so as to proceed towards the projects aim. Various parameters for the project are

decided based on the researches done earlier. All the papers which helped us to know and

precede more about honey comb structures and its mechanism are written below.

2.2 Literature review

Taranath S. D., Mahantesh. N.B, M. B. Patil ‘ Comparitive study of pentagrid and

hexagrid systems for tall building, 2015 [1]

The paper has presented the comparative study of newly developed structural systems for

structures. The comparative study of hexgrid and pentagrid system with normal flab slab and

structure with shear wall is done in this paper. Structural system with normal flat slab and

shear wall is subjected to earthquake loading and the structure is then modified into a

structure with hexgrid bracing and pentagrid system. The height of structure is varied to

study the effect of these bracings on the structure. As a result of the study they have found

that the stiffness of the structure has considerably increased in case of bracing system and

also they have found that the pentagrid bracing is more effective to a certain height then its

effect considerably decreases. The lateral response of the structure is reduced with a large

difference.

Xue Yi Fu, Ying Gao, Ying Zhou, Ziang Bing Yang ‘Structural design of Sinosteel international plaza’ China
construction design international, 2012.[2]

This paper presents the structural design and concept of newly constructed building in China called as
‘Sino Steel International Plaza’. It is also known as ‘Tianjin international plaza’.

There are two buildings constructed, named as T1 and T2. the total height of the building T1

is 109.2 meter and area of building is 65180 square metre. T2 has height above ground level

358 meters and the area of this building is 225370 square meters. Both of the buildings are

similar in structural design and just the is the height varies. The building consists of hexgrid
shear solid surface made of rectangular steel sections. This building is the first worldwide

application of hexagrid system. The foundation of the building has concrete filled piles. The

floors of the structures are rc slabs which rests on. The hex grid acts as the shear solid surface

and is capable of carrying lateral loads very well. The exoskeleton is weak in vertical forces.

The uniform force distribution less damages the structure, making the structure rigid.

Dr. Peyman A. Nejad ‘Beehive (Hexagrd), New Innovated Structural System For Tall

Buildings, 2011[3]

The paper presents the details about the concept of hexagrid system. The building has no

outer column and the material has saved up to 15% to 12% roughly. In this competitive

environment this biomimitic structure is inspired by beeives has found to have many factors

that make the structure environment friendly. The structure which is mentioned in the paper

is the Beehive tower in London. The building has an internal core system. The beams and the

exoskeleton of the building which is the hex grid is so connected that the outer skeleton can

take gravity load and dynamic horizontal loads as well. The stiffness of the structure is

increased by this concept. There are different concepts in which hexagrid to be can be build.

These types of structure require no external columns because the total load is taken by the

hexagonal tube sections. The beams are not made stronger so as to make the columns

stronger than the beams. The structural analysis is done in ETABS. The tall towers are more

prone to natural disasters. So as a need of more safe structures these types of developing

concepts are found more efficient to implement and are with having the entire structural

environment
A.E Hasaballa , fathelrahaman M. Adam, M.A.Ismaeil, ‘ Seismic analysis of reinforced concrete buildings
by response spectrum method’2013 [4]

Seismic analysis of multistory building was carried out for a moderate earthquake force the

frames were analysed by response spectrum method and the storey displacement and stresses

were found out.

Ritesh A. Khire, Steven Van Dessel, Achille Messac, and Anoop A. Mullur ‘Study of a Honeycomb-Type
Rigidified Inflatable Structure for Housing’[5]

This paper presents a parametric study aimed at unfolding general design criterion that

governs the structural performance of honeycomb like rigidified inflatable structures in place

of load-bearing wall systems for used in mainly residential housing. The paper discusses

those optimal dimensions for various honeycomb RIS wall structural systems. The

optimization results indicate that the quantity of material needs to be satisfied the design

criteria is not affected to that extent by the size of the hexagonal cells. Optimal structural

designs for the honeycomb RIS wall systems. It was found that honeycomb-type wall systems

require material in large quantity to satisfy design parameters and loading conditions, but yet

found be desirable in certain cases

P. Jayachandran, ‘Design of Tall Buildings Preliminary Design and Optimization’ [6]

The design of tall buildings essentially involves a concept based design, approximate
analysis, preliminary design and its optimization, to safely carry gravity and lateral loads.

This paper is about studies of tall structure with different members used and there

optimization on the basis of their aspect ratios and greater moment carrying capacities .Good

preliminary design and optimization is a way to better fabrication and erection costs, and

better construction.

Mir Ali And Kyoung Sun Moon “Structural Developments In Tall Buildings: Current Trends And Future
Prospect”,13 June 2007. [7]

The paper represents the changing scenario of the world with respect to the tall structure

environment. The different height of the structure and the most efficient newly developed

structural systems are discussed in this paper. The different type of structure discussed in this

paper is concrete exo-skeleton, steel braced tube without interior columns, space truss and

frame structures. In this paper it is discussed that with the change of height and storeys how

the demand of steel increases. Though there is an increase in the steel requirement the lateral

stiffness of the system and its efficiencies increases thus to make it less vulnerable to damage

due to collapse of the structure due to sudden horizontal forces and vertical forces. Every type

of structure has different mechanism to make the system more resistant to earthquake being

tall structure. The paper more over discusses the different type of damping strategies that

helps reduce the effect of earthquake on the structure.

Adrian Mahu ‘ The End Of Skyscrapers’ [8]

The paper presents the present scenario of the world with respect to high rise building. The

author of this paper has given emphasis on the strength of the structures. The direction of

contemporary type architecture according to the author should be changed. With the increase
in the interest of architects to design something different with respect to the conventional

structural and its implementation on the ground, the strenght of the structure should be given

outmost priority. The skyscrapers are the structures which are the tall structure about 152

meter or 500 feet and these are the building above 30 storey. These tall structures are highly

prone to disasters due to wind and earthquakes. The author has mentioned different places

and structure which are destructed due to earthquakes. There are various famous structures he

has mentioned about. The tall structures requires huge amount of resources for its execution.

On the other hand the need of self reliable structure and environment friendly structure is

rising. The after effects of disasters are found to be dangerous and have great potential for the

degradation of the society.

R.Koohlas, ‘Leaf review (Climate control)’ [9]

Paper presents discussed about the new hexagrid structural system. Moreover it discusses

about how the designers should to come up with more environment friendly designs. The

screening system in Abu Dhabi has adopted this type of designs should be made.

Masayoshi Nakai. ‘Advanced structural technologies for high rise buildings in Japan’

[10]

Paper discusses about the various technologies adopted for structural system in Japan that

makes structure seismic force absorbent. The common structures are given inclined systems

(members) throughout the high of the structure thus improving the capacity of effectively

transferring the lateral forces to the ground.

Tomohiko Yamahashi, ‘Innovative façade system of Japan’ [11]

Paper presents about the various tall structures in Japan are discussed and overviewed. The

various structures are constructed by architectural point of view and strength is also given

outmost importance .Many structures are made thermal insulated by using various structural

systems

Michael Robert Patterson, ‘structural glass facades: a unique building technology’.

MAY 2008 [12]

Author of the papers has enlightened the changing technologies with the glass façade

building. From last three decades the face systems are very much famous. The skin of the

building gives a very good aesthetic appearance of the building earlier it was difficult to get a

different aesthetics appearance w of the skin facades with also given the strength of the

structures. Today there are more technology developed materials used for glass façade.

B K Raghu Prasad, Kavya A J, Amarnath K, ‘ Comparative Performance of Octagrid and Hexagrid Lateral
Load Resisting Systems For Tall Building Structure’ November

2014 [13]

In case of low rise buildings the effect of loading is different than in case of high rise

building. The effect of lateral loads become dominant in case of high rise building and so are

considered as the major forces that act on the structure the effect of wind force and

earthquake load is more and so the intensity of these forces with increased in the height is

more. The effect of bracing systems with octagrid and hexagrids are studied on 30,40 and 50

storied buildings.
Hetal parekh , Agam shah, ‘The Triple Bottom Line Benefits of Climate-Responsive Dynamic Façades ’
2014.[14]

Author of the paper has highlighted the different structure with the climate responsive

elements façade so arranged to use more natural energy of the climate. The triple bottom line

benefit of structure with used the daylight, shading and ventilation in these structures are

more advantageous systems as far as the constraints such as economy, environment and

benefits from the building to the humans. The green house effect is totally omitted and the

people can invest their money in such type of constructions and technology so as this

dynamic facades will be beneficial to the structure on large constraint.

LI Shengcai, JIANG Jianjing, yu Qjngrong, ‘Shear-Resistant Behavior Analysis of Light Composite Shear
Walls’ 2002 [15]

Light composite shear walls as a replacement of masonry in case of conventional type

structure is the usage of the shear wall is replaced with the light composite structures and are

placement in case where the masonry is constructed. The studies consist of the shear test

carried out on the composite panel of light composite panels. The composite shear wall

panels are found to bear more lateral loads than in case of normal conventional structure. The

panel had concrete with steel meshing.

2.3 Summary

In this chapter various literatures by different authors are studied and compared related to this

project so as to have better understanding of the project under consideration.

REFERENCES

[1]. Taranath S. D.1, Mahantesh. N.B2, M. B. Patil3 ‘ Comparative study of pentagrid and

hexagrid systems for tall building, Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental

Technology,Print ISSN: 2349-8404; Online ISSN: 2349-879X; Volume 1, Number 2;

August, 2014 pp. 10-152015 [2]. Xu Ye Fu1,Ying Gao2, Ying Zhou3, Ziang Bing Yang4, Structural design of
Sinosteel international plaza, China construction design international, CTBUH 2012, 9TH World

congress,Shanghai. [3]. Peyman AskariNejad1, Jose alfano2, Beehive (Hexagrid), New innovated
structural

building for tall buildings, CTBUH Seoul conference, 2011.

[4]. A.E Hasaballa1, Fathelrahaman M. Adam2, M.A.Ismaeil3, ‘ Seismic analysis of reinforced concrete
buildings by response spectrum method’ IOSR Journal of
Engineering (IOSRJEN) e-ISSN: 2250-3021, p-ISSN: 2278-8719 Vol. 3, Issue 9

(September. 2013), ||V3|| PP 01-09 2013. [5]. A.Khire1, Steven Van Dessel2, Achille Messac3, and
Anoop A. Mullur4 ‘Study of a Honeycomb-Type Rigidified Inflatable Structure for Housing’ ASCE Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 132, No.10, Oct.2006, pp 1664 – 1672. [6]. P. Jayachandran, ‘Design of Tall
Buildings Preliminary Design and Optimization’. [7]. Mir Ali1 And Kyoung Sun Moon2 “Structural
Developments In Tall Bilidings: Current Trends And Future Prospect”, Architectural Science
ReviewVolume 50.3, pp

205-223,13 June 2007. [8]. Adrian Mahu ‘ The End Of Skyscrappers [9]. R.Koohlas, ‘Leaf review ( Climate
control) [10]Masayoshi Nakai1 ‘Advanced structural technologies for high rise buildings in Japan’
[11]Tomohiko Yamahashi, ‘Innovative façade system of Japan’ [12]Michael Robert Patterson, ‘Structural
glass facades: a unique building technology’.

MAY 2008 [13]B K Raghu Prasad1, Kavya A J2, Amarnath K3, ‘ Comparative Performance of Octagrid and
Hexagrid Lateral Load Resisting Systems For Tall Building Structure’ B K

Raghu Prasad et al. Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications

www.ijera.com ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 4, Issue 11(Version - 5), November 2014, pp.74

80 November 2014. [14]Hetal parekh1 , Agam shah2, ‘The Triple Bottom Line Benefits of
ClimateResponsive Dynamic Façades’ 2014. [15]LI Shengcai1, JIANG Jianjing2, yu Qjngrong3, ‘Shear-
Resistant Behavior Analysis of Light Composite Shear Walls’ ISINGHUA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ,ISSN
1007-0214 02/20 pp560 – 566,Volume 7, Number 6? December 2002

CHAPTER-03

METHODOLOGY

Methodology of this project consists of the transforming a conventional type structure into a

biometric honeycomb structure by using the software STAAD pro. To transform the structure

into the honeycomb structure the hexagrid is provided at outer side of the structure. the sizes
of the hexagrid can vary with height of the structure. The hexagrid applied to the structure

with maximum grids. Then the optimization of honeycomb hexagrid is done by increasing the

sizes of the honeycomb hexgrid structure with the floor to floor height of the structure. the

structural systems are explained in details below.

3.1 Details of the structure

A G+ 9 structure used for analysis. A small plan of the structure is used. Following figure

shows the plan of the building with is the column orientation.

Figure 3.1 The plan and column orientation of the structure

The area of building is 13.48m x 14m .

3.1.1 Sizes of beams and columns and slabs used for analysis

• All the sizes of beams and columns used for analysis are kept same for both type of

honeycomb structure and conventional type structure. the building has 35 number columns. • The
column sizes are 500mm X 250 mm • The beam sizes are • B1=400mm x230 mm • B2=450mmx230mm
• B3=500mmx230mm • The slab thicknesses are taken as per the plan

Slab 1 that is S1=125 mm

Slab 2 S2=115 mm

All the sizes of the member in both the type of structures as kept same so that it would be

convenient to compare all he three type of structures.

3.1.2 Honeycomb (hexagrid) structure • All the sizes of beams, columns and slab in case of honeycomb
structure is same

as in case of conventional structure. • The hexagrid is made up of concrete section of size 200 mm X
200mm
3.1.2 Optimization of honeycomb hexagrid • Initially the hexagrids where placed in such a way there are
4 or 2 small hexgrids

assembled between two columns between a vertical floor to floor height of 3m. • After optimization the
hexagrids are placed such that between the vertical distances of

3m there is only one hexagrid between two columns.

• The assembly of hexagrid system is shown in the figure

Figure 3.2 Variation in the hexagrid after optimization

3.2 Details of parameters for seismic analysis

Analysis is carried out as per IS 1893 following parameters are considered: 1. Zone factor as zone IV

2. Soil type is taken as medium soil

3. Reduction factor is taken as 5

4. Damping is taken as 5%

3.2.1. Load combinations used in analysis as per IS 456:2000

Following are the load combinations used for analysis of buildings 1. LOAD COMB 1= EQRX

2. LOAD COMB 2 = DL

3. LOAD COMB 3 = LL

4. LOAD COMB 4 = 1.5 XDL+ 1.5XLL

5. LOAD COMB 5 = 1.2X DL+ 1.2 XLL

6. LOAD COMB 6 = 1.2XDL+ 1.2XLL + 1.2 XEQRX

7. LOAD COMB 7 = 1.2 XDL+1.2XLL -1.2XEQRX

8. LOAD COMB 8 = 1.5 XDL

9. LOAD COMB 9 = 1.5 X DL + 1.5 X EQRX

10. LOAD COMB 10 = 1.5 X DL -1.5 X EQRX

11. LOAD COMB 12 = 0.9 X DL+1.5 X EQRX

12. LOAD COMB 13 = 0.9X DL 1 -1.5 X EQRX.

3.3 Elevation details of the structures

All the three structures ie; conventional structure, honeycomb structure and optimized

honeycomb structure have floor to floor height of 3 m.  The depth of foundation below plinth level is
2.4 m  The total height of each structure above ground level is 27 m

Following figure shows the 3D elevation of all the three types of structures.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3.3.1: 3D view of both the types of structures used in analysis

where;

(a) Conventional structure

(b) Honey comb structure

(c) Optimized honeycomb structure

For the purpose of comparison the beams and columns of the structures are numbered. So that

in graphs whichever is the number of columns and beams are mentioned, it would be

comprehensive that in all the structures the same beams or column is compared. And thus the

results would be comprehensive.

Figure 3.3.2 Type of columns for all the types of structures at each floor

Figure 3.3.3 Type of beams for all the types of structures at each floor for comparison

purpose

REFERENCES

1. Xu Ye Fu1,Ying Gao2, Ying Zhou3, Ziang Bing Yang4, Structural design of Sinosteel international plaza,
China construction design international, CTBUH 2012 9TH World

congress, Shanghai. 2. Taranath S. D.1, Mahantesh. N.B2, M. B. Patil3 ‘ Comparative study of pentagrid
and hexagrid

systems for tall building, Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental Technology, Print

ISSN: 2349-8404; Online ISSN: 2349-879X; Volume 1, Number 2; August, 2014 pp. 10

152015 3. B K Raghu Prasad1, Kavya A J2, Amarnath K3, ‘ Comparative Performance of Octagrid and
Hexagrid Lateral Load Resisting Systems For Tall Building Structure’ B K Raghu Prasad et

al. Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications www.ijera.com ISSN : 2248-9622,

Vol. 4, Issue 11(Version - 5), November 2014, pp.74-80 November 2014.

CHAPTER NO 4

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the transformation of conventional structure into honeycomb structure, we had to

consider the following parameters. So that the comparison will be on both the type of the
structures with all the parameters kept same.

4.1 Loading

This section discusses the different loads that could act upon a tall building; moreover it

discusses the importance of those loadings. The forces which can act and considered to be

acting on the structures are dead weight of the structure, live load on the structure, earthquake

forces as this project deals with the seismic behavior of the structures under consideration.

Loading calculations:

There were three types of loading consideration taken into account while analyzing both the

type of the structure that is honeycomb structure and conventional structure.

I. Live load (Imposed load)

II. Dead load

III. Seismic load

4.1.1 Imposed load

Live loads on any structure are the forces which can be moving or stationary concentrated

loads. The change in the live load is gradual. Live loads are not permanent type . Live loads

can be probable; live load includes the load of machinery, equipments, object in motion or

changing with time. It may include the weight of the furniture. Which can be changed moved. All
opposite of the dead loads, imposed loads aren’t attached to the respective structure

permanently.

Imposed load are calculated on the structures according to IS 1893 part II. The G +9 three

structures having same plan under consideration is a residential building. As per IS 875 (Part

2) imposed floor load on any residential building is given as.

1. Live load on all the floors of residential building - 2.5 KN/m2

2. Live load on roof with access provided - 1.5 KN/m2

4.1.2 Dead load

Dead loads are of permanent type, dead load is due which the structure is constructed consist

of all the materials such as wall made up of of brick work or other material, concrete, plaster,

components of a buildings ,beams columns, weight of slab all comes under the dead load.

The dead load so, varies with height of the structure which varies with the number of storey’s

and sizes of the members s of the structures beams, columns slabs, it consists of all the

materials which are permanently attached to elements of structure. The dead load varies with

size of the building. And it is different for all the different structures unlike live loads which

have a specified load within a structure. Dead load is mainly dependent on the density of

material used.

Dead load consists of:

1. Weight of slab, beams and columns

2. Brickwork in structure

3. Weight of glass panels

4. Weight of doors and door frames

4.1.3 Seismic Loading

Seismic loading deals with effect of ground motion on the structure. These are mainly lateral

forces that act on the structure. due to the tectonic activities the ground motion takes place in

a particular region and affects the structure depending on the type of the structure and the

material used for construction, and moreover the height of the structure ,the aspect ratio of

the structure. There are different ways the earthquake forces can be calculated. The

earthquake force calculated by static analysis method deals with the base force calculation

due to shear of earthquake by virtue of the dead load of the structure. There are two types of

ways for design of any structure for earthquake load as per the need of the structure and the
location:

1. Maximum considered earthquake: this method is the one in which economy is not

given much importance. The maximum value of earthquake that will act on the

structure according to the zones in considered. 2. Design based earthquake: the various factors, such as
probability of earthquake, type

of the structure. Zone of the structure, the soil type, importance of the building all

these factors are multiplied the probable value. Most of the structures are designed by

using this method.

Loadings as per IS 1893:

India is basis on the earthquake prone area and intensity and magnitude of past earthquake is

divided into four seismic zones. Zone II, Zone III, Zone IV, Zone V.

The earthquake horizontal acceleration Ah is the multiplication of 4 factors numbered as

1,2,3,4.

1. Z=Zone factor , it depends on the location of the building of or the structure under

consideration. When the maximum earthquake is to be taken into account the zone

factor is taken as it is. For design purpose it is divided by 2 2. I/R where, I= importance factor , depends
on the importance of the building. The

building which is more important has a greater important factor. And R=Response

reducing factor of the structure which depends on how the building is featured to

resist the forces, 3. Sa /g = average response acceleration coefficient, it depends on the different soil
type

of the structure on which the building is founded.

Design Lateral Force (lateral shear at the base of the structure) VB:

Where, VB is the multiplication of earthquake horizontal acceleration Ah with the seismic

weight W of the building excluding the roof live on earth. There is another more accurate

method used in the analysis of which is called as the response spectrum method in which by

SRSS method the analysis is done by using STAAD pro . This method is more accurate

method which is hardly used for the design of building. But it is more accurate to find the

dynamic behavior of any structure.

REFERENCES

[1] IS 1893-2002 Part-I [2] IS 875-1987 Part –I/Part –II/Part-III

CHAPTER-05

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Response spectrum and static analysis was done for all the three models of G+9 building

models of conventional type structure, honeycomb structure and optimized honeycomb

structure. The storey displacement, base shear, axial forces, bending moment and shear forces

in the members are studied. Following are the result of analysis.

5.1 Storey displacement of the structures.

Storey displacement is the earthquake parameter in with on the account of an earthquake the

relative displacement of each storey takes place. The storey displacement is found to be more

on the top most storeys. Following is the figure shows the storey displacement of the three

types of the structures.

Figure 5.1 Variation of storey displacement of honeycomb structure, optimized honeycomb structure,
conventional type of structure

10

15

20

25

0123456789

Average displacement in mm

Storey number

Convention al structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

5.2 Time period

Time period of the structures depends on the rigidity of the structure. Following figure shows

the time period of the three types of structure for 6 different mode shapes

Figure 5.2 Variation of time period for different mode shapes conventional structure honeycomb
structure, optimized honeycomb structure respectively

5.3Axial forces in columns

As the axial forces are maximum at the ground level, the comparison of axial forces is done for ground
level columns only for most critical load combination. The column numbers are taken as per the section
3.3 figure 3.3.2

Table 5.3.1 Variation of axial force in columns

Axial forces in KN

Column number

Load combination

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure 1 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 7007.851 7379.277 7041.555 7 1.5 x (DL + EQRX)
7093.651 7418.396 7112.034 8 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 7797.431 6305.261 5306.537 14 1.5 x (DL + LL)
8032.327 6439.368 5487.348 15 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 7074.159 5589.501 4919.837 21 1.5 x (DL + EQRX)
7388.392 5783.723 5137.421 22 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 6351.648 6358.21 5376.305 28 1.5 x (DL + EQRX)
6602.683 6532.552 5657.35 29 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 5514.243 7476.305 7192.25 35 1.5 x (DL + LL) 5848.361
7634.912 7386.332

1 2 3 4 5 6 Conventional structure 1.136 0.771 0.75 0.378 0.254 0.244 Honeycomb structure 0.639 0.527
0.378 0.213 0.171 0.12 Optimized honeycomb structure 0.721 0.572 0.425 0.24 0.185 0.14 0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.8

1.2

Time period in Sec

Figure 5.3.1 Variation of axial forces of all the outer columns in conventional structure, honeycomb
structure and optimized honeycomb structure.

Table 5.3.2 Variation of axial force in columns

Axial forces in KN

Column number

Load combination

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure 2 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 3675.596 3899.563 3091.567 3 1.5 x (DL + EQRX)
2730.387 2293.542 2578.345 4 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 1777.312 1146.198 992.821 5 1.5 x (DL + LL) 2677.057
2301.206 2598.149 6 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 3742.541 3920.875 3126.148 9 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 3910.448
2622.328 2606.547 10 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 2115.102 1407.75 1422.393 11 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 2065.876
1550.152 1560.504 12 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 2276.485 1394.496 1411.96 13 1.5 x (DL + LL) 3759.155
2591.296 2568.487

1000
2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1 7 8 14 15 21 22 28 29 35

Axial forces in KN

Column Number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Figure 5.3.2 Variation of axial forces of columns in conventional structure, honeycomb structure and
optimized honeycomb structure.

Table 5.3.3 Variation of axial force in columns

Axial forces in KN

Column number

Load combination
Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure 16 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 3670.709 2377.803 2444.818 17 1.5 x (DL + EQRX)
2059.141 1531.593 1556.005 18 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 2155.187 1694.141 1715.928 19 1.5 x (DL + LL)
2211.596 1515.18 1554.224 20 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 3584.095 2336.01 2393.978 23 1.5 x (DL + EQRX)
3386.472 2654.026 2657.479 24 1.5 x (DL + EQRX) 1984.407 1422.702 1437.76 25 1.5 x (DL + EQRX)
2092.378 1564.67 1576.93

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13

Axial Forces in KN

Colmun Number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Figure 5.3.3 Variation of axial forces of columns in conventional structure, honeycomb structure and
optimized honeycomb structure.

Table 5.3.4 Variation of axial force in columns

Axial forces in KN

Column number

Load combination

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure 26 1.5 x (DL +EQRX) 2115.76 1411.507 1430.974 27 1.5 x (DL +EQRX)
3279.377 2621.84 2610.473 30 1.5 x (DL +EQRX) 3311.214 3966.776 3216.813 31 1.5 x (DL + LL)
1991.443 2418.433 2884.896 32 1.5 x (DL +EQRX) 1891.054 1257.779 1098.588 33 1.5 x (DL +EQRX)
2099.323 2354.679 2671.584 34 1.5 x (DL +EQRX) 3117.446 3974.521 3054.865

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25
Axial Forces in KN

Column Number

Conventiona l structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Figure 5.3.4 Variation of axial forces of columns in conventional structure, honeycomb structure and
optimized honeycomb structure
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

26 27 30 31 32 33 34

Axial forces in KN

Column Number

Conventiona l structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

5.4 Comparison of bending moment and shear force in beams at each floor

The bending moment and shear force of all the beams at all the 9 floors are found out for all the three
types of structure for the most critical load combination of each.

5.4.1 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for the beams at first floor.

The bending moment and shear force at first floor beams are found out. The numbering is done as per
the section 5.3 fig 5.3.3

Table 5.4.1.1 Variation of forces at first floor beams

Shear -Y in KN Moment-Y in KN.M

Beam no

L/c
Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

1440.812

-33.565

162.9021

37.265

-18.937

21.571

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-861.74
-378.769

338.992

-25.957

-1.729

10.981

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-741.285

-281.262

-371.669

-19.908

-4.123

-9.842
4

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

628.223

-382.411

-367.767

18.865

-3.661

-7.497

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

842.809

549.909

495.583
24.671

36.565

35.422

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

201.515

-709.782

85.47

35.356

-40.536

38.759

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-99.637
-48.639

59.729

-66.561

-24.248

26.857

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-99.332

26.308

-72.951

-67.603

-26.198

-27.449
9

1.5 X (DL + LL)

69.315

57.715

27.942

-0.815

25.832

37.18

10

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

36.11

-44.554

-88.595
71.096

-26.821

-32.998

11

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

29.751

25.861

-36.681

63.602

-17.576

-25.439

12

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-155.43
614.488

58.041

-109.2

29.752

34.873

Figure 5.4.1.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 1st floor

Figure 5.4.1.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 1st floor

5.4.2 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for the beams at second floor
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

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

Bending moment in KNm

Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

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

Shear force in KN

Beam number
Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

The bending moment and shear force at second floor beams are found out. The numbering is done as
per the section 3.3 fig 5.3.3

Table 5.4.2.1 Variation of forces at second floor beams

Beam number

L/C

Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycom b structure

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

1265.691 14.991 74.446 44.549 18.416 31.326

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

1265.691 330.004 437.919 44.549 1.163 2.253

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

719.674 253.657 342.98 8.385 3.855 5.886

4

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

847.407 334.384 442.631 5.528 4.447 3.47

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

563.658 297.407 270.414 34.974 26.388 22.066

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

174.764 508.321 159.62 50.529 35.434 35.554

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

56.128 40.542 61.154 35.271 22.424 25.313

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

13.328 32.24 74.259 39.336 25.691 27.39

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

56.702 55.909 22.447 45.021 25.975 35.757

10

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

67.527 51.033 99.709 37.838 25.075 32.294

11

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

31.854 33.733 29.76 34.926 15.908 23.474

12
1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

176.84 447.491 129.76 40.496 25.174 32.481

10

20

30

40

50

60

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

Bending moment in KNm

Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Figure 5.4.2.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 2nd floor

Figure 5.4.2.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 2nd floor

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

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

Shear force in KNm

Beam number
Conventiona l structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

5.4.3 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for the beams at third floor.

The bending moment and shear force at third floor beams are found out. The numbering is done as per
the section 5.3 fig 5.3.3

Table 5.4.3.1 Variation of forces at third floor beams

Shear -Y in KN Moment-Y in KN.M Beam no

L/C

Conventional structure Honey comb structure Optimized honeycomb structure Conventional structure
Honey comb structure Optimized honeycomb structure

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

1118.264

-14.655

129.76

40.033
-17.57

32.481

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-983.552

-331.305

-396.849

-5.215

-0.843

-1.993

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-638.43

-238.132
-320.08

-7.884

-3.644

-5.572

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

762.585

-297.656

-400.228

5.484

-4.695

-3.496

5
1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-511.568

-265.324

-236.348

-31.468

-23.325

-20.324

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-168.985

-416.192

179.245

-45.665
-31.549

31.432

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

48.803

-36.864

25.991

32.633

-20.521

-24.031

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-9.849

36.994
-68.721

-37.087

-24.465

-26.507

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

48.987

56.784

16.183

43.782

24.895

33.371

10
1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-65.292

-55.911

-104.454

-35.64

-23.036

-30.222

11

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-26.28

40.597

98.08

-31.201
14.518

22.05

12

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

171.182

364.467

151.798

36.209

23.466

29.033
Figure 5.4.3.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 3rd floor

Figure 5.4.3.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 3rd floor

5.4.4 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for the beams at fourth floor.

The bending moment and shear force at fourth floor beams are found out. The numbering is done as per
the section 3.3 fig 3.3.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

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

Beanding moment in KN m

Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

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

Shear force in KN m

Beam number

Conventiona l structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Table 5.4.4.1 Variation of forces at fourth floor beams

Shear -Y in KN Moment-Y in KN.M

Beam no

L/C

Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycom b structure

Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

974.885

-21.067 -43.175 35.212 -15.937 -27.76

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-863.511
-297.688 -351.153 -5.338 -0.94 -1.556

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-552.883

-217.503 -289.506 -7.24 -3.348 -5.106

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

676.939

-258.468 -353.455 5.271 -4.786 -3.571

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-452.576

-211.564 -203.903 -27.546 -19.583 -18.379

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

78.133

-350.434 190.346 40.241 -29.268 27.374

7

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

40.704

-38.132 34.034 29.429 -18.45 -21.97

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-5.633 41.091 -59.804 -34.255 -21.943 -24.852

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

560.236 54.173 8.95 21.688 22.427 30.162

10

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-62.44 -59.261 -105.177 -32.644 -20.772 -27.387

11

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-20.138 42.259 90.307 -27.321 12.5 19.933

12

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

162.233 298.723 164.326 31.423 22.022 25.665

Figure 5.4.4.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 4th floor

Figure 5.4.4.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 4th floor

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

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

Bending moment in KN m

Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

200

400

600

800

1000

1200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Shear force in KN

Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

5.4.5 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for the beams at fifth floor.

The bending moment and shear force at fifth floor beams are found out. The numbering is done as per
the section 3.3 fig 3.3.3

Table 5.4.5.1 Variation of forces at fifth floor beams

Shear -Y in KN Moment-Y in KN.M

Beam no

L/C

Conventio nal structure

Honey comb structu re

Optimized honeycomb structure

Conventio nal structure

Honey comb structu re

Optimized honeycomb structure

1
1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

826.095

-21.766

-31.046

29.944

-14.47

-24.815

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-736.444

-260.42

-299.346

-5.26

-1.008
-1.024

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-128.4

-84.62

-252.499

-16.429

-2.99

-4.532

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

585.899

216.121
-300.608

4.924

-4.786

-3.633

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

585.899

110.698

81.161

4.924

-16.321

17.357

6
1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

62.511

287.278

191.004

34.234

-26.027

23.096

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

31.344

-43.685

41.447

25.679

-15.845
-19.403

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-0.547

40.331

-48.106

-30.794

-19.925

-22.538

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

513.254

54.433
1.085

19.425

20.319

26.282

10

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-59.096

-61.469

-102.807

-28.944

-17.818

-23.885

11
1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-12.95

46.224

81.161

-23.25

10.944

17.357

12

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

150.268

237.123

150.229

26.306

19.659
2.847

Figure 5.4.5.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 5th floor

Figure 5.4.5.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 5th floor

5.4.6 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for the beams at sixth floor.

The bending moment and shear force at sixth floor beams are found out. The numbering is done as per
the section 3.3 fig 3.3.3

10

15

20

25

30

35

40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Bending moment in KN.m

Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

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

Shear force in KN

Beam number

Conventiona l structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Table 5.4.6.1 Variation of forces at sixth floor beams

Shear -Y in KN Moment-Y in KN.M

Beam no

L/C

Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

659.2

-21.093

-19.086

23.948

-12.669
-21.247

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-592.488

225.463

-285.913

-5.041

1.091

-0.586

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-118.452

-48.405
-208.983

-13.262

-2.851

-3.842

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

481.697

-168.95

-239.767

4.465

-4.673

-3.652

5
1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-314.209

-115.307

70.74

-18.424

-12.885

14.341

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

44.657

-220.715

-147.798

27.344

-21.843
-18.531

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

20.411

-48.517

43.301

21.231

-12.831

-16.352

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

5.349

39.229
-34.163

-26.591

-17.479

-19.669

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

452.19

54.079

-7.526

16.616

17.731

21.68

10

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-55.423
-62.602

105.727

-24.428

-14.418

20.554

11

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-4.438

49.95

70.74

-18.748

9.126

14.341
12

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

135.378

171.938

164.07

20.675

16.612

18.027

Figure 5.4.6.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 6th floor

Figure 5.4.6.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 6th floor

5.4.7 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for the beams at seventh floor
The bending moment and shear force at seventh floor beams are found out. The numbering is done as
per the section 3.3 fig 3.3.3

10

15

20

25

30

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

Bending moment in KN.m

Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

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

Shear force in KN
Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Table 5.4.7.1 Variation of forces at seventh floor beams

Shear -Y in KN Moment-Y in KN.M

Beam no

L/C

Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized Honeycomb structure

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

460.469 -21.046 -5.786 16.908 -10.523 -17.091

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-420.806 175.103 -218.736 -4.758 1.502 -0.721

3

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-106.244 -9.233 -158.511 -9.575 -2.699 -3.048

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

355.356 -114.735 -168.846 3.932 -4.49 -3.598

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-228.566 -64.398 58.926 -12.868 -9.523 10.815

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

24.561 -144.784 -137.124 19.308 -16.387 -13.529

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

7.575 -52.649 38.061 15.886 -9.315 -12.779

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

11.605 38.077 -18.201 -21.481 -14.7 -16.274

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

377.13 53.113 -16.762 13.184 14.799 16.412

10

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-51.942 70.3 99.041 -18.949 11.368 16.841

11
1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

5.693 53.089 58.926 -13.477 6.995 10.815

12

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

117.537 21.471 158.15 14.297 3.428 13.497

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

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

Shear force in KN

Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Table 5.4.8.1 Variation of forces at eight floor beams

Shear -Y in KN Moment-Y in KN.M

Beam no

L/C
Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

222.683

-23.188

-17.962

8.737

-8.087

-10.754

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-217.267
118.012

-142.04

-4.507

1.935

-0.849

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-11.64

33.66

14.524

-5.526

-2.578

-2.612
4

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

202.994

-53.302

-87.123

3.429

-4.302

-3.456

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-127.885

-73.083

39.725
-6.496

-6.298

6.739

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

3.732

-62.378

-129.454

9.695

-9.131

-7.24

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-6.942
-56.227

31.875

9.634

-5.154

-8.984

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

16.295

36.952

-2.012

-15.539

-11.678

-12.51
9

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

257.829

44.704

34.359

9.465

-11.58

-10.694

10

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-50.033

69.526

92.026

-12.78
9.413

12.654

11

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

17.142

55.612

49.907

-7.313

4.511

7.065

12

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

17.142
64.236

156.141

-7.313

7.873

7.768

Figure 5.4.8.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 8th floor

Figure 5.4.8.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 8th floor

5.4.9 Comparison of bending moment and shear force for the beams at ninth floor.

The bending moment and shear force at ninth floor beams are found out. The numbering is done as per
the section 3.3 fig 3.3.3

2
4

10

12

14

16

18

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

Bending moment in KN m

Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

50

100

150

200

250

300

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

Shear force in KN

Beam number

Conventional structure
Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

Table 5.4.9.1 Variation of forces at ninth floor beams

Shear -Y in KN Moment-Y in KN.M

Beam no

L/C

Conventional structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycom b structure

Conventi onal structure

Honey comb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-18.641 -17.171 -36.135 -3.182 -3.901 -5.644

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-29.739 31.116 38.321 -3.986 2.048 0.911

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-21.546 27.468 25.221 -3.843 -3.179 -2.867

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

32.913 -8.546 -16.718 2.731 -3.814 -2.581

1.2 X (DL + LL + EQRX)

-0.339 60.281 -8.653 -3.152 -1.45 -4.109

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-2.297 29.618 -87.83 3.425 2.089 -4.607

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

-10.341 -0.041 19.231 4.372 -5.141 -3.602

1.5 X (DL + EQRX)

1.969 13.234 0.805 -8.627 -3.389 -9.284

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

161.066 20.887 35.679 4.258 -9.535 10.618

10

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

34.376 37.766 53.6 5.776 8.266 9.137

11

1.5 X (DL - EQRX)

-24.475 29.618 28.948 -3.92 2.089 1.738

12

1.2 X (DL + LL- EQRX)

34.913 27.332 66.542 3.39 6.153 5.233

Figure 5.4.9.1 Variation of bending moment in Y direction at 9th floor

Figure 5.4.9.2 Variation of shear force in Y direction at 9th floor

5.5 Dead load

10

12

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

Beanding moment in KNm

Beam number

Conventional structure
Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

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

Shear forcein KN

Beam number

Conventional structure

Honeycomb structure

Optimized honeycomb structure

The dead load in all the three types of structures varies due to the replacement of the outer

wall with the hexagrid and further it varied in the optimized honeycomb structure due to the

change in the sizes of hexagrid system

Figure 5.5 Variation of Dead load of structures

5.6 Base shear

The base shear is calculated by both equivalent static and response spectrum method. Base

shear varies from structure to structure and depends on the stiffness and weight of the

structure and also on the intensity of earthquake force applied to the structure. The base shear

of all the three types of structures under consideration were found out and comparison is done

0
5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Conventional structure Honeycomb structure Optimized honeycomb

Dead load in KN

Type of structure

Figure 5.6 Variation of Base shear of structures

13500

14000

14500
15000

15500

16000

16500

17000

17500

Conventional structure Honeycomb structure Optimized honeycomb structure

Vb Base shear in KN

Type of structure

CHAPTER-06

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the result following conclusions are made: 1. Storey displacement: The storey
displacement in case of honeycomb structure is

found to be less by 50% than conventional structure. And if the hexgrid members are

increased the response further can be reduced by 75% or more. 2. Time period: The time period in case
of honeycomb structure is reduced by 50% and

after optimization it is found to be less by 30 % as compared to conventional type

structure. 3. Axial forces: The total axial forces in case of conventional type of structure is found

to be 136390 KN and in case of honeycomb structure the total axial force in all the

columns is found to be 123146 KN on the other hand the axial forces in case of

honeycomb structure is reduced to 114879 KN. So the total reduction of axial forces

after optimization is found out to be 84% of the conventional structure. 4. Bending moment: The total
bending moment in case of conventional type structure is
found to be 2398 KNm and total bending moment in case of honeycomb structure

1444 KNm ie; 40% of the conventional type structure and in case of optimized

honeycomb structure the bending moment is found to be 1727 KNm , 30% of the

conventional type structure. 5. Shear force: The total shear force in case of conventional type structure
is found out

to be 29717 KN. The total shear force in case of honeycomb structure is found to be

14100 KN which is less than conventional type structure by 53%. After optimization

the total shear force is found out to be 13663 KN, which is less than conventional type

structure by 55%. 6. Dead load: The dead load in case of honeycomb structure is less than conventional

structure is found to be less by 33% and after optimization it is found to be less by

38% of conventional type structure.

The honeycomb structure is found to be very efficient than conventional type structure.

The maximum sizes of hexagrid increases the dead load of the building but reduces the

response to a greater extend. The optimized hexgrid system gave moderated results of

bending moment, storey displacement, shear force, time period. But it also found to be

reducing the axial forces on the columns. On the other site in case of hexagrid structure

the axial forces where more than the optimized honeycomb structure. In case of optimized

honeycomb structure the dead load of the structure reduced making the structure lighter in

weight. The hexgrid honeycomb structural system is thus found to be light in weight,

efficient in case of lateral loads, and it can also save the material to a greater extent and

thus money.
CHAPTER-07

FUTURE SCOPE

The honeycomb structure system as found very efficient than conventional structure. The

main set back of it is the construction of the hexagrid and its implementation. In case of tall

building structural system after a particular storey height the conventional structure needs

shear wall so as to increase its lateral stiffness. The method makes the structure heavy. The

honeycomb type structure does not make the structure heavy. As we know light is the

structure lighter is the earthquake force acting on it. The earthquake force by virtue of the

weight of the building will be very less. Still due to lack of cost effective technology the

implementation of honeycomb type structures are not preferred. If more technologies are

developed this type of technologies will be implemented. And the use of scares material like

cement water etc will be reduced to a greater extent. These techniques should be made more

effective as far as their construction is concerned so that people would be able to invest their

money on such environment friendly techniques. And also due to implementation of such

techniques the damage to the society and property and environment due to major earthquakes

can be reduced. Based on the required strength precast hexgrid members can be developed so

that it gets easier that constructing the same at site.