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

net/publication/301398451

Simplified Limit State Design Procedure for RC Tall Buildings

Subjected to Earthquake and Extreme Wind Loads

Conference Paper · January 2014

DOI: 10.3850/978-981-09-1139-3_154

CITATIONS READS

0 4,157

3 authors, including:

Rama Raju Kunadharaju Nagesh R. Iyer

CSIR Structural Engineering Research Centre Indian Institute of Technology Dharwad
29 PUBLICATIONS   91 CITATIONS    422 PUBLICATIONS   1,548 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MLP14741 View project

Studies on Steel Building Components and Connections under Environmental and Cyclic Loads View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rama Raju Kunadharaju on 24 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 5th International Congress on
Computational Mechanics and Simulation,
10-13 December 2014, India

SIMPLIFIED LIMIT STATE DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR RC

TALL BUILDINGS SUBJECTED TO EARTHQUAKE AND
EXTREME WIND LOADS

K. Rama Raju1, R.R. Aathish Narayanan2, Nagesh R Iyer3

1
Chief Scientist, 2Project Student, Vibration Control Group, 3Director,
CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, Taramani, Chennai-600113, India.
E-mail: 1krraju@serc.res.in, 2aathish555@gmail.com, 3director@serc.res.in

Abstract

Consideration of site specific lateral loading due to wind or earthquake loads along with vertical
gravity loads is important for finding the behaviour of tall buildings. The design criteria for tall
buildings are strength, serviceability and human comfort. In the present study, the analysis and design
of a 3B+G+40 storey residential building for earthquake and wind loads is carried out considering
the member forces due to dead load, live Load, wind load and earthquake load combinations with
the partial safety factors for limit state of collapse as per Indian standard codes of practice. The
members are designed for the most critical member forces. In present study, an alternative simplified
method of considering load combinations for finding the member forces and choosing the most
critical member forces for design is suggested. The final design of members is found to be more
economical and satisfy the recommendations of most of the international codes of practice.

Keywords: Tall buildings; seismic loads; wind loads; response spectrum method; gust factor
method.

Introduction
In general, for design of tall buildings both wind as well as earthquake loads need to be considered.
The important factors need to be considered in seismic resistant design of structures are, the
characteristics of the structure (type, height and base dimensions of the structure, damping of the
structure, importance of the structure and ductility of the structure) and the location of the structure
(earthquake zone in which the structure is located - gives characteristics of the earthquake ground
motion represented by amplitude of ground motion i.e., Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and the
site soil conditions). As per IS 875(Part 3):1987, when wind interacts with a building, both positive
and negative pressures occur simultaneously, and the building must have sufficient strength to resist
the applied loads from these pressures to prevent wind induced building failure. The magnitude of
the wind pressure is a function of exposed basic wind speed, topography, building height, internal
pressure, and building shape.
In the present study, a simplified method for designing a 3B+G+40 multi-stored residential
building against earthquake and wind loads is proposed. The building is on soft soil and assumed to
be located at Mumbai. The member forces are calculated with load combinations for limit state of
collapse and limit state of serviceability given in Table 18 of IS 456: 2000 and the members are

669
2014
c ICCMS Organisers. Published by Research Publishing. All rights reserved.
ISBN:978-981-09-1139-3 || doi:10.3850/978-981-09-1139-3 154
 designed for the most critical member forces among them. The building is subjected to self-weight,
dead load, and live load as per IS 875(Part 1, Part 2):1987. Safety of the structure is checked with
respect to the limits prescribed for base shear, roof displacement, inter-storey drifts and accelerations
in codes of practice and other references in literature on effects of earthquake and wind loads on
buildings. A new method of design with less number of load combinations of dead load (DL), live
load (LL), earthquake load (EL) and wind load (WL) with partial safety factors for earthquake and
wind loads equal to 1.0 as suggested by most of the international codes (Table 1) is proposed. This
method requires less design effort, and it can be used for non-orthogonal buildings (building not
oriented along the orthogonal horizontal direction) and helps in arriving at more economical sections
in designs as compared to method given in IS 456:2000. Eurocode 2-2004 also suggests same
procedure for earthquake loads, but it does not require to be multiplied any factor for responses. But
for wind loads it prescribes a partial safety factor of 1.5.

Description of building model

Modeling of building
In the present study, an RCC 3B+G+40 storey residential building model and its loading
conditions are taken from INSDAG report, 2007. The general features of the building model and beam
sections used in the building are given in Table 2. The Young’s Modulus (E) for concrete and steel
are 21.718 and 205 (kN/mm2) respectively. Poisson’s ratio (µ) for concrete and steel are 0.2 and 0.3
respectively. The load combinations considered for the design and procedure for getting critical loads
for design is not described in the INSDAG report (2007).

Table 1 Load combinations used in different countries

AMERICIAN AUSTRALIAN MEXICAN NEWZELAND CANADIAN EUROPEAN INDIAN
LC
ACI 318-11 AS 3600-2009 RCDF 2004 NZS 3101-06 CSA A23.3-04 EURO 2-2004 IS456 :2006
1.25 DL ±1.40
1 0.9DL ± WL 0.9DL ± WL 0.9DL ± WL 0.9DL ± WL DL ± 1.5 WL 1.5(DL±WL)
WL
1.2DL+LL+0.5Lr 1.1DL+1.1LL 1.2DL±0.4LL± 0.90 DL ± 1.40 1.35 DL ± 1.5 0.9DL
2 1.2DL ± WL
±WL ±WL WL WL WL ±1.5WL
1.2DL+1.6LL±0. 1.2DL+0.6LL+0.4 DL + 0.4LL ± 1.25DL+0.5LL± 1.35DL+1.5LL±0 1.2(DL±LL±
3 0.9DL ± EQ
5WL LR±WL EQ 1.40WL .9LL WL)
1.1DL+1.1LL 1.0 DL ± 1.00 1.35DL±1.5WL+ 1.5(DL ±
4 0.9DL + EQ DL ± EQ -
±EQ EQ 0.9LL EQ)
1.2DL+ 1.6S ± DL+0.6LL+0.4LR DL + 0.50 LL ± 0.9DL ±
5 - - DL ± EQ
0.5WL ±EQ EQ 1.5EQ
1.2DL+LL+0.5S DL ± EQ + 0.3 1.2(DL+LL±
6 - - - -
±WL LL EQ)
1.2DL+LL+0.2S
7 - - - - - -
±EQ
Note: DL: Dead load; LL: Live load; EQ: Earthquake load; LR: Reduced load; WL: Wind load; S: Snow load;
LC: Load Case.

Table 2 General features of the model structure

Height Thickness
Length Width Beam schedule
(including basement) BF (3 Nos.) GF TF RF Slab SW
30.485 27 148.9 3.2 5 3.5 1.6 0.15 0.26 B1:0.3×1.2: B2:0.3×0.7
Note: Basement Floor (BF), Ground Floor (GF), Typical Floor (TF), Refuge Floor (RF),
Shear Wall (SW), 10th, 20th and 30th floors are designed as refuge floors; All units are in ‘m’

The building has been provided with wall type RCC columns as shown in Figure 1. The
dimensions of columns suggested in INSDAG report, 2007 with rectangular, L, T and Star sections
are given in Table 3 and shown in Figure 1. In the analysis, the L and T shaped columns with D and B

670 5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation

of size 1.5 and 0.3m are assumed to be equivalent rectangular and square shaped columns of size
1.2×1.2 and 2.1×0.85m as given in Table 3. This is because centroid of L, T sections are eccentric to
the center line of other beams connecting them. The Star section has dimensions of D and B of size
1.5m and 0.5m respectively. The centroid of the Star sections is in line with the centroids of other
sections connecting to the member, so they are assumed as prismatic sections. The moment of inertia
of Star section in X- and Y- direction are 1.25 and 0.151m4 respectively and polar moment of inertia is
0.104 m4. The grades of reinforcing steel and concrete used in the building are assumed to be of Fe500
and M60 respectively.
Analysis of 3B+G+40 storey RC building has been carried out by considering the entire structure
as a 3D moment resisting frame with brick infill panels using STAAD.Pro software. Beams and
columns are considered as beam elements. The slabs are considered as plate elements. There are 4047
joints and 6353 elements in the STAAD.Pro analysis model of the structure. The main objective of
modeling whole structure as 3D model is to take into account the behavior of each and every
component in space structure environment. The slab is modeled as an element to carry the live load as
distributed pressure load. Lift well and staircase walls are modeled as shear walls to resist the lateral
loads like wind and earthquake loads. Surface plate elements are used for shear walls.

Modeling of loads
The basic loads considered in this study are dead load (DL), live loads (LL), earthquake loads
(EL) and wind loads (WL). The summary of DL and LL considered for the building is given in Table
4. In load combinations involving Imposed Loads (LL), IS 1893 (Part I):2002 recommends for loads
up to and including 3 kN/m2, 25% of the imposed load to be considered for seismic weight calculations.
The earthquake loads are assigned in X and Y directions as ELx and ELy respectively as per IS
1893(Part 1): 2002.
Table 3 Column schedule
Column C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
B
Base to 5th floor 0.5×1.25 1.25×0.5 B B

6th to 10th floor 0.3×1.25 1.25×0.3 D B D B D

11th floor to roof 0.3×1 1×0.3 D

B
D D
Note: C1 and C2 are rectangular Columns; For all sections units are in ‘m’

Analysis of Building for Earthquake Loads

Equivalent static analysis
The plan of the RC building considered is unsymmetrical. The building is found to be not
sensitive to torsion. Since, the building is modeled as moment resisting frame with brick infill, the
time periods in X- and Y- direction are calculated using the formula given in Clause 7.6.2 of IS
1893(Part 1): 2002,ܶ௔ ൌ ͲǤͲͻ݄Τξ݀, where, h, is height of the building, in ‘m’ and d is the base
dimension of the building at plinth level, in ‘m’, along the considered lateral force. For the present
building, time period in X- and Y- direction are found to be 2.59s and 2.44s respectively. The
equivalent static analysis also known as the equivalent lateral force procedure or seismic coefficient
method (SCM) is used for finding the response of the structures to earthquake loads. Since building
is located in Mumbai, in analysis, the base shear along X- or Y- direction is calculated in terms of a
spectral acceleration coefficient, the weight of the building and a few other variables such as
importance factor (I=1.5), response reduction factor (R=3), zone factor (z= 0.16) and the soil is
assumed to be soft soil. The design horizontal coefficients in X- and Y- directions are found to be
0.644 and 0.685 respectively. The seismic weights in X- and Y- directions are found to be 457936

5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation 671

 and 243613.1kN respectively. In seismic coefficient method, the total design seismic base shear (ṼB)
calculated as per Clause 7.5.3 of IS 1893(Part 1): 2002 is found to be 11814.75 kN.
Response spectrum method

26.7
4.95 3.80 4.60 4.60 3.80 4.95
B1 B2 B2 B1
10
C3 C3 C2 C3 C3

B1
B1
B2
4.4

B2

B2

B2
B2
C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2
9
B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2
C1 C1

B2
4.435
B2

B1
8 B1
B1 B1 B1 B1
C3 B2 C1 C1 B2 C3
7

B1

B1

B2
B1
B2
4.57

B2 C4 C5 C5 C4 B2 C1
6

30.485
C1 B1 B1 B1
B2
3.375

B1

B2
6.79
C1 B1 B1 B1 C1
5
B2 C4 C5 C5 C4 B2
4.57
B2

B2
B1

B1
B1

C1 C1 C3
4
B2 B1 B2
C3 B1 B1 B1
B1
4.435
B2

B1

B2
3
C1 C1
2.25

B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 C2
2
C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2

B2
B2

B1

B2

B2

B2

B1
4.4

C3 C3 C2 C3 C3
1
B1 B2 B2 B1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Note:All Dimensions are in 'm' B1 B2 Shear wall
Figure 1 Plan of the Building

Table 4 DL and LL considered as per IS 875(Part 1, 2):1987

Load description Value
Superimposed load on each floor
x Finish load 1.25 kN/m2
x Live load 2.0 kN/m2
x Wall load with hollow bricks
 240 mm thick external wall 10.0 kN/m
 125 mm thick internal wall KN/m 3.6 kN/m

Intensity of superimposed load over refuge floor

x Finish load 1.25 kN/m2
x Live load 4.0 kN/m2
Additional service load over roof top
x Water proofing load 3.0 kN/m2
x Live load 1.5 kN/m2
x Service load 4.0 kN/m2
Overhead reservoir load (Column load at the column of shear wall) 500 kN

As per Clause 7.8.2 of IS 1893(Part 1): 2002, for buildings having height greater than 90m,
dynamic analysis with time history or response spectrum method need to be performed to obtain the
design seismic force, and its distribution to along the height of the building and to the various lateral
resisting elements. Since the building taken for study is having a height of 148.9m (more than 90 m

672 5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation

height), the dynamic analysis need to be carried out. Here, dynamic analysis is carried out using
response spectrum method (RSM) (also known as “modal analysis procedure”) in accordance with
the requirements of Clause 7.8.4, IS 1893(Part 1): 2002. The method is based on superposition of
natural modes of the building. Hence, free vibration modes are computed using Eigen value analysis.
The number of modes considered is based on the mass participation factor for each mode. Sufficient
number of modes (r) needs to be considered to capture at least 90% of the total participating mass of
the building (in each of the horizontal directions) in the analysis. In the present study, 20 modes are
considered and corresponding mass participation of the building is 94.88%. The frequencies, natural
periods and modal participation factors for first 20 modes are given Table 5. The natural periods of
the building considered are found to be very closely spaced. So, the peak model response quantities
(such as member forces, displacements, storey forces, storey shears, and base reactions) are
combined together using CQC method. The CQC method is considered as the extension of SRSS
method and it is used for calculating earthquake loads for very closely spaced time periods. In
response spectrum method, the design base shear (VB) shall be compared with the base shear (ṼB)
calculated with seismic coefficient method. If VB is less than ṼB, all the response quantities need to
be multiplied by a factor ṼB / VB as per Clause 7.8.2 of IS 1893(Part 1): 2002. By using STAAD.Pro
software, base shear using seismic coefficient method (ṼB) and response spectrum method (VB) are
found to be 11814.75 and 6675kN in X- direction and, 12589.25 and 6805kN in Y- direction. The
earthquake loads (assigned in X- and Y- directions by ELx and ELy respectively) need to be multiplied
by factors (ṼB/VB) are 1.77 and 1.85 in X- and Y- direction, respectively as per IS 1893(Part 1): 2002.
But, this requirement of multiplying response quantities with (ṼB/VB) is not there in Eurocode 8.

Table 5 Natural frequency, periods and Mass participation factor for different modes
Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Frequency (Hz) 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.76 0.76 0.83 1.36 1.37 1.40 1.97 2.01 2.02 2.61 2.64 2.74 3.32 3.38 3.45 3.52 3.56
Period (s) 4.2 4.0 3.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Mass X 0.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 87.0 87.0 91.1 91.1 91.1 92.8 92.8 92.8 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.9 94.9 94.9 94.9 94.9
Participation
Factor (%) Y 71.4 71.4 71.4 85.6 85.6 85.6 85.6 90.2 90.2 90.2 90.2 92.2 92.2 92.2 93.9 93.9 93.9 93.9 94.6 94.6

Storey drifts for seismic loads

As per Clause no. 7.11.1 of IS1893(Part 1):2002, the peak storey drift in any storey due to
specified design lateral force with partial load factor of 1.0, shall not exceed 0.004xhs, where, hs is
storey height (3500 mm). So maximum permissible inter-storey drift= 0.004×3500 = 14mm. From the
response spectrum analysis, the peak storey drift in X- and Y- directions are found to be 5.29 and
5.1mm respectively. After multiplying the response quantities by a factor, ṼB / VB (in X- and Y-
direction 1.77 and 1.85), the storey drifts in X- and Y- direction are found to be 9.37 and 9.43 mm
respectively. Since, these are less than the allowable inter-storey drift 14mm, the structure is safe.

Analysis of Building for Wind Loads

The Lateral Wind Force (Fz) as per IS 875 (Part 3):1987

As defined in code, the dynamic analysis for wind load is suggested for closed buildings with
height to minimum lateral dimension ratio of more than 5 or fundamental frequency of the building
less than 1 Hz. It is suggested to check for wind induced oscillations and a magnification factor called
gust response factor needs to be included in the dynamic effects of the wind. The building considered
for study has height to least lateral dimension ratio of 5.2 (more than 5). The natural frequency
calculated using the formula given in Code (݅Ǥ ݁Ǥ ǡ ܶ ൌ ͲǤͲͻ݄Ȁξ݀, where, h is height of the building
and d is the maximum base dimension of building in ‘m’ in the direction parallel to applied wind

5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation 673

 force) is 0.412 Hz, and, by dynamic analysis of building using STAAD.Pro, the natural frequency is
0.17 Hz (less than 1 Hz). Therefore, the dynamic analysis of the building for wind loads need to be
carried out using gust factor method given IS 875 (Part 3):1987.
The design wind speed, Vz at any height z is found by equation,

ܸ௭ ൌ ܸ௕ ݇ଵ ݇ଶ ݇ଷ (1)

Where, Vb is basic wind speed in m/s, k1 is probability factor (risk coefficient), k2is terrain roughness
and height factor and k3 is topography factor as per Clause 5.3.3.The lateral force along wind load
on a structure on a strip area (Ae) at any height, z is found by equation,

‫ܨ‬௭ ൌ ‫ܣ‬௘ ܲ௭ ‫ܥ‬௙ ‫ܩ‬, (2)

where, Cf is force coefficient for building, calculated from Clause 6.3.2.1(Figure 4), Ae is effective
frontal area considered for the structure at height z, Pz is design pressure at height z due to hourly
mean wind obtained as ͲǤ͸ܸ௭ଶ (N/m2), G is gust factor (peak load / mean load) as per Clause 8.3. The
data considered for the gust factor method are wind speed, Vb=44m/s, force coefficient, Cf=1.38,
K1=1.07, K2 is varying with height as per Terrain Category I, K3=1, Life of the structure 100yrs,
Gust factor, G=1.787. For analysis, the lateral force Fz is considered in kN/m2, and the wind
intensities at various heights are given as input to the STAAD.Pro software as given in Table 6. From
the analysis, the base shear due to wind load for wind speed Zone III in X- and Y- direction are found
to be 13648.03 and 12072.3kN respectively.

Table 6 Wind Intensity at various heights

Height (m) 5-8.5 12 15.5-19 22.5-29.5 33-48.6 52.1-99.2 102.7-139.3
2
Intensity (kN/m ) 1.995 2.205 2.369 2.539 2.836 3.214 3.479

Roof displacement due to wind

The maximum value of deflection in serviceability limit condition obtained for wind loads from
the finite element 3D model of STAAD.Pro is 178.14mm. According to IS 456: 2000 of clause 20.5,
the maximum allowable deflection is hs/500, where hs is the storey height for multi-storey building.
So, maximum allowable deflection value for building height of 139.3m is 278.6mm. The roof
displacements found from analysis (178.14mm in X– direction and 156.47mm in Y– direction) are
less than allowable (278.6 mm). So, design of structure is safe.

Peak inter-story drift due to wind

For the performance of the building envelope to be adequate, the peak inter-story drift must not
exceed 1/300 to 1/400 of the storey height under un-factored loads, although this criterion may vary
depending on type of cladding or glazing and cladding attachment details. In absolute terms, inter-
story drift should not exceed 10 mm unless special details allow non-structural partitions, cladding,
or glazing to accommodate larger drift Simu and Miyata, (2006). For the present problem, the
maximum allowable drift is assumed to be 1/400 of storey height. For a storey height of 3500 mm,
the allowable drift is 8.75 mm and for storey height of 5000 mm, the allowable drift is 12.5 mm. For
the present problem, the peak inter-story drift due to wind loads is found to be 6.37 mm in X –
direction and 5.29 mm in Y – direction which are less than the allowable, so the design is safe.

674 5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation

Peak accelerations due to wind
In the case of wind load, serviceability limit states for tall buildings are specified in literature
(Simiu and Scanlan, 1996) in terms of degree of discomfort caused by wind induced acceleration as
given in Table 7. In this study the simple expression by Islam et al., 1990 is used for finding the
acceleration levels caused by wind on a building in urban environment. Acceleration at height z
(m/s2), A (z) = 0.0116 B0.26zܷ ଶǤ଻ସ Ȁሺ‫ ܭ‬଴Ǥଷ଻ߦ ଴Ǥହ ‫ܯ‬଴Ǥ଺ଷ ), where, U is mean hourly wind speed at the top
of the building (m/s), B is plan dimension of building (m), M is generalized mass of the building
(kilogram), K is generalized stiffness (N/m) = M (2ߨN) 2, where, N is frequency (Hz) and ߦ is damping
ratio. From this equation, the maximum acceleration at a height of 139.3m is found to be 0.1096%g.
This is less than 0.5%g. Therefore the degree of discomfort is imperceptible (Table 7).

Table 7 Degree of human discomfort and the acceleration levels (Simiu and Scanlan, 1996)
Degree of discomfort Imperceptible Perceptible Annoying Very annoying Intolerable
Acceleration (%g) <0.5 0.5 to 1.5 1.5 to 5 5 to 15 >15

Analysis and design details of building

Load Combinations
The variations in loads due to unforeseen increases in loads, the types of limit states are taken
into account to define the design load. The design load is given by design load = γf × characteristic
load Section 36.4 of IS 456: 2000, where γf is partial safety for the loads given in Table 18 of IS 456:
2000. After the computational model is developed and the loads are assigned, the model needs to be
analyzed for the individual load cases. The internal forces in the members (e.g., bending moment,
shear force and axial force) for earthquake and wind load cases are combined as per Table18 of IS
456: 2000, IS 1893(Part 1): 2002, Section 6.3. The building is found to be insensitive to torsional
and vertical loads. Because the building is oriented in orthogonal direction, as per clause 6.3.2.1, the
internal forces in the members (e.g., bending moment, shear force and axial force) in the building are
found from 25, DL, LL, EL and WL combinations with the partial safety factors for limit state of
collapse given in Table 8. The members are designed for the most critical member forces among
them. The analysis and design for these load combinations are given in Appendix A.

Table 8 Load combinations – Normal Method

1: ͳǤͷሺ‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ܮܮ‬ሻ
2-3: ͳǤʹሺ‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ ܮܮ‬േ ‫ܮܧ‬௑ ሻ 6-7 : ͳǤͷሺ‫ ܮܦ‬േ ‫ܮܧ‬௑ ሻ 10-11: ͲǤͻ‫ ܮܦ‬േ ͳǤͷ‫ܮܧ‬௑
4-5 : ͳǤʹ൫‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ ܮܮ‬േ ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ൯ 8-9: ͳǤͷ൫‫ ܮܦ‬േ ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ൯ 12-13: ͲǤͻ‫ ܮܦ‬േ ͳǤͷ‫ܮܧ‬௬
14-15:ͳǤʹሺ‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ ܮܮ‬േ ܹ‫ܮ‬௑ ሻ 18-19: ͳǤͷሺ‫ ܮܦ‬േ ܹ‫ܮ‬௑ ሻ 22-23:ͲǤͻ‫ ܮܦ‬േ ͳǤͷܹ‫ܮ‬௑
16-17:ͳǤʹ൫‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ ܮܮ‬േ ܹ‫ܮ‬௬ ൯ 20-21:ͳǤͷ൫‫ ܮܦ‬േ ܹ‫ܮ‬௬ ൯ 24-25:ͲǤͻ‫ ܮܦ‬േ ͳǤͷܹ‫ܮ‬௬

Unlike most of the international codes (Table 1), the partial safety factors given in IS 456:2000
are more than 1.0 for earthquake and wind loads. For more precise calculation of ELs, it is more
appropriate to take site specific response spectra obtained at the location of the building from
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) than using partial safety factor more than 1. The
numbers of EL combinations need to be taken for non-orthogonal buildings are twenty five (National
Disaster Management Authority, 2011). There is no specific method for taking WL for non-
orthogonal buildings in IS 875(Part3):1987. The present method requires more number of load cases
(more design effort) and it is highly conservative in design of buildings.
A methodology of combining the maximum value of each action effect on the structure due to
the two horizontal components of seismic action estimated by the ‘square root of the sum of the

5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation 675

 squared (SRSS)’ responses to each of the horizontal component is more rational methodology of
design for non-orthogonal structures as per IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, Clause 6.3.2. The same
methodology is suggested in Eurocode 8, Part 1.2 in Clause 3.3.5.1. By this method, in the present
building, the number of load cases reduces to 13 (less design effort) and helps in arriving at more
economical cross sections. Since, in SRSS method, the signs of the stress resultants (e.g., axial force,
shear force, bending moment) of members are lost, the design engineer should carefully assign the
sign to the response quantities. The load combinations in the proposed methodology are given in
Table 9.

Table 9 Load combinations – Proposed Method

L.C No. N1 N2-N3 N4-N5 N6-N7 N8-N9 N10-N11 N12-N13
ͳǤʹܺ‫ܮ‬ ͳǤͷܺ‫ܮ‬ ͲǤͻܺ‫ܮ‬ ͳǤʹܺ‫ܮ‬ ͳǤͷܺ‫ܮ‬ ͲǤͻܺ‫ܮ‬
L.Comb ͳǤͷܺ‫ܮ‬ േ ‫ܮܧ‬ േ ‫ܮܧ‬ േ ‫ܮܧ‬ േ ܹ‫ܮ‬ േ ܹ‫ܮ‬ േ ܹ‫ܮ‬
଴Ǥହ ଴Ǥହ
Note: XL:DL+LL;‫ܮܧ‬ǣ ൫‫ܮܧ‬௫ ଶ ൅ ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ଶ ൯ ;ܹ‫ܮ‬ǣ ൫ܹ‫ܮ‬௫ ଶ ൅ ܹ‫ܮ‬௬ ଶ ൯ ǢL.Comb: Load combinations ;
L.C No: Load Case Numbers (N1-N13).

Beam and column designs

The design of beams and columns are carried out for the critical load combinations from using
the hand book by Sinha, 1996 and SP16. The critical load combinations and the beam design details
as per IS 456:2000 (Table 8) and proposed method (Table 9) are given in Table A1. For the critical
values shear forces of beams, the stirrups are designed using IS 13920:1993, and as per IS 456:2000
and proposed method are given in Table A2. The critical load combinations for the rectangular
columns C1 and C2, L, T and Star shaped columns are designed as per IS 456:2000 (Table 8) and
proposed method (Table 9) are given in Table A3.
In final design, the dimensions of columns of L, T and Star shaped columns of B and D as 0.3
and 2m respectively. The percentage of longitudinal reinforcement required by the method given in
IS 456:2000 and newly proposed method for columns is given in Table 10. The overall percentage
of reduction by new method over the method described in IS 456:2000 is found to be 33.27%.

Table 10 Weight of steel required in tons for columns

Present method Newly proposed method % reduction
Sections
Volume (mm3) Weight (t) Volume (mm3) Weight (t) (weight)
C1 790.04 60.85 670.40 51.63 15.15
C2 861.94 66.38 742.22 57.16 13.88
C3(L) 6772.65 521.55 4620.89 355.85 31.77
C4(T) 2442.16 188.07 1580.22 121.69 35.29
C5(Star) 2317.74 178.49 1183.69 91.15 48.93
Total 13184.53 1015.32 8797.42 677.48 33.27

The percentage of longitudinal and shear reinforcement required by the method given in IS
456:2000 and newly proposed method for beam at 5th floor is given in Table 11. The percentage of
reduction in longitudinal and shear reinforcement in 5th floor by new method over the method
described in IS 456:2000 is found to be 55.39%. Design moments in beams and columns, obtained
by the proposed method, satisfies the condition of strong column and weak beam requirement of
Clause 7.2. The final dimensions of beam sections are satisfying the requirement for earthquake-
induced effects mentioned in Clause 6 of Doc No. CED 39 (7941) WC.

676 5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation

 Table 11 Weight of steel required in tons for beams in 5th floor
Present method Newly proposed method % reduction
Reinforcements Sections
Volume (mm3) Weight (t) Volume (mm3) Weight (t) (weight)
B1 397.75 30.63 183.10 14.10 53.96
Longitudinal
B2 225.17 17.34 75.32 5.80 66.56
B1 36.88 2.84 30.00 2.31 18.64
Shear
B2 7.66 0.59 9.35 0.72 18.09
Total 667.46 51.40 297.76 22.93 55.39

Reinforcement details

The typical reinforcement joint details of the columns, C1 (11th to Roof) and beam, B2 joint detailing
is shown in Figure 2. The reinforcement details beam B2:L2,0, L9,0 are shown in Figure 3 and the
reinforcement details of columns, C1 (Base to 5th), C2 (11th to Roof), C34,9 (L-section), C46,8 (T-
section) and C55,6 (Star section) are shown in Figure 4. For the proposed methodology reinforcement
detailing would be same. Since, the load combination with earthquake is governing, the ductile
detailing as per IS 13920:1993 or recent Doc No. CED39 (7941) WC need to be followed. The
ductile detailing condition of relative strength of beam and column should be checked at each beam
column joint as per Clause 7.2 of Doc No. CED39 (7941) WC. The condition states that, at each
beam-column joint of a moment- resisting frame, the sum of nominal design strength of columns
meeting at that joint (with nominal strength calculated for the factored axial load in the direction of
the lateral force under consideration so as to give least column nominal design strength) along each
principal plane shall be at least 1.4 times the sum of nominal design strength of beams meeting at
that joint in the same plane,݅Ǥ ݁ǡ ߑ‫ܯ‬௖ ൒ ͳǤͶߑ‫ܯ‬௕ ǡ ܹ݄݁‫݁ݎ‬ǡ ߑ‫ܯ‬௕ ൌ ‫ܯ‬௕௜ ൅‫ܯ‬௕௥ and ߑ‫ܯ‬௖ ൌ ‫ܯ‬௖௧ ൅ ‫ܯ‬௖௕ Ǥ
As an example, for joint number 678 with column C1 (11th to Roof) and beam B2, the sum of nominal
design strength of columns (ߑ‫ܯ‬௖ ൌ250) is approximately equal to sum of nominal design strength
of beams (ͳǤͶߑ‫ܯ‬௕ =252). i.e., ߑ‫ܯ‬௖ ؆ ͳǤͶߑ‫ܯ‬௕ ǤSimilar way all the joints need to be checked. If it is
not satisfied, the sections need to be revised.

Summary and conclusion

In this paper, the analysis and design of a 3B+G+40-storey RCC high rise building subjected to wind
and seismic loads is carried out as per IS codes of practice. The structural model and its loading
conditions are taken from the INSDAG report, INS/PUB/104 (2007). The building is modeled as 3D
space frame using STAAD.Pro software. Base shear is found with seismic coefficient method (ṼB)
and response spectrum method (VB) as per IS 1893(Part1):2002. The analysis of the building due to
wind load is carried out using Gust factor method given in IS 875(Part3):1987. Safety of the structure
is checked against allowable limits prescribed for inter-storey drifts, base shear, accelerations and
roof displacements in codes of practice and, other references in literature on effects of earthquake
and wind loads on buildings. Member forces were found for 25 load combinations with the partial
safety factors for collapse given in IS 456: 2000, and the members were designed for the most critical
forces among them. Unlike most of the international codes (Table 1), the partial safety factors given
in IS 456:2000 are more than 1.0 for earthquake and wind loads. For more precise calculation of ELs,
it is more appropriate to take site specific response spectra obtained at the location of the building
from probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) than using partial safety factor more than 1. The
numbers of EL combinations need to be taken for non-orthogonal buildings are 25. There is no
specific method for taking WL for non-orthogonal buildings in IS 875(Part3):1987. The present
method requires more number of load cases (more design effort) and it is highly conservative in

5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation 677

 design of buildings. A methodology of combining the maximum value of each action effect on the
structure due to the two horizontal components of seismic action estimated by the Square Root of the
Sum of the Squared (SRSS) responses to each of the horizontal component is more rational
methodology of design for non-orthogonal structures as per IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, Clause 6.3.2 is
used. The same methodology is suggested in Eurocode 8, Part 1.2, in Clause 3.3.5.1. By this method,
in the present building, the number of load combinations of DL, LL, EL and WL reduces to 13 (less
design effort) and helps in arriving at more economical cross sections. Since in SRSS method, the
signs of the stress resultants (e.g., axial force, shear force, bending moment) of members are lost, the
design engineer should carefully assign the sign to the response quantities. In present method and
proposed method using response spectrum method, the design base shear (VB) shall be compared
with the base shear (ṼB) calculated with seismic coefficient method. If VB is less than ṼB, all the
response quantities need to be multiplied by a factor ṼB / VB as per Clause 7.8.2 of IS 1893(Part 1):
2002. But, this requirement of multiplying response quantities with (ṼB/VB) is not there in Eurocode
8.

lo=1.0

lo=1.0 0.15

hc=3.5 0.25

lo=1.0

lo=1.0

1.0
ߑ‫ܯ‬௕ ൌ ‫ܯ‬௕௜ ൅ ‫ܯ‬௕௥ ൌ ͳ͸͸Ǥͺͳ ൅ ͳ͵Ǥ͵Ͷ ൌ ͳͺͲǤͳͷǢ ߑ‫ܯ‬௖ ؆ ͳǤͶߑ‫ܯ‬௕ =1.4×180.15=252.21
ܽ݊݀ߑ‫ܯ‬௖ ൌ ‫ܯ‬௖௧ ൅ ‫ܯ‬௖௕ ൌ ͳͳͻǤͳ͸ ൅ ͳ͵Ͳ ൌ ʹͷͲ; ߑ‫ܯ‬௖ ؆ ͳǤͶߑ‫ܯ‬௕
Figure 2 C1 (11th to Roof) and beam B2 joint detailing

Acknowledgment

This paper is being published with the kind permission of Director, CSIR-Structural Engineering
Research Centre, Chennai-600113, India. The authors thank staff of Vibration Control Group, CSIR-
SERC for their help in various stages of this study.

678 5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation

 A B C
1.45
0.175 0.3 0.175

1.18
1.18

1.48
A' B' C'
0.495
0.495 4.95

a) Longitudinal reinforcement
0.3

2#-25Ø 2#-25Ø
2#-32Ø
0.7 2#-32Ø
2#-32Ø
2#-25Ø

b) A-A’@ End Span c) B-B’@ Mid Span d) C-C’@ End Span

Note: All units are in ‘m’
Figure 3 Beam detailing B2: L2,0 ,L9,0

0.075 0.3 0.075 0.2

0.5 0.3

1.25 1.00
36#32Ø 14#32Ø
a) C1 (Base to 5th) b) C2 (11th to Roof)
0.3 2 0.3
0.075 0.3
0.3

2# 32Ø
0.3 2# 25Ø
0.04

2.00

2# 32Ø 2# 32Ø
0.3
0.3
0.025
2.00 0.3
42 #32Ø 54#32Ø 32#32Ø & 24#25Ø
c) C34,9 (L-section) d) C4 6,8(T-section) e) C55,6 (Star section)
Note: All units are in ‘m’
Figure 4 Column reinforcement details of Rectangular, L, T and Star sections

References
Building subjected to Wind and Earthquake Loads”, The Eighth Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind
Engineering, December 10-14, 2013, Chennai, India.

5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation 679

 Eurocode 8, Part 1.2, “Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures”, DD ENV 1998-1-
2:1996.

INSDAG PUBLICATION: INS/PUB/104, (2007), “3B+G+40 storeyed residential building with

steel-concrete composite option”, Institute for steel development & growth (INSDAG), December
2007.

IS 456: 2000, “Plain and reinforced concrete - Code of practice”, Bureau of Indian standards, New
Delhi, 2000.
IS 875 (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 ):1987, “Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for
buildings and structures”.
IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures”, Bureau of Indian
standards, New Delhi, 2002.

IS13920: 1993, “Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces - Code
of practice”, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, 1993.
Islam, M. S., Ellingwood, B., Corotis, R. B., "Dynamic Response of Tall Buildings to Stochastic
Wind Load," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Volume 116, No. 11, November 1990.
Jain S. K, Murty C.V.R., “Proposed Draft Provisions and Commentary on Indian Seismic Code IS
1893 (Part I)” , IITK-GSDMA-EQ05-V4.0, IITK-GSDMA-EQ15-V3.0.
National Disaster Management Authority, (2011), “Development of Probabilistic seicmic hazard
map of india” Technical report, ISBN 978-93-80440-12-5.

Rama Raju K, Shereef M I, Nagesh R Iyer, Gopalakrishnan S, “Analysis and Design of RC Tall
Building subjected to Wind and Earthquake Loads”, The Eighth Asia-Pacific Conference on
Wind Engineering, December 10-14, 2013, Chennai, India.
Simu, E and Miyata, T. (2006), “Design of buildings and bridges for wind a practical guide for
ASCE-7 standard users and designers of special structures, John Wiley & Sons.
Simiu, E, Scanlan R. H., Wind effects on structures: fundamentals and applications to design, New
York: John Wiley, 1996.
Sinha, S.N., Handbook of reinforced concrete design, 1996, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company
limited, New Delhi 110 008.
SP 16, Design Aids for reinforced concrete IS 456, 1978.

680 5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation

 APPENDIX – A
Table A1 - Beam analysis and design results for moments at 5th floor
Present method- Proposed method-
Present method Proposed method
Ast - required (mm2) Ast - required (mm2)
D Gird ID BT
end mid end end mid end end mid end end mid end
LC LC LC LC LC LC
span span span span span span span span span span span span
L1,0 , L10,0 B1 7 2245 10 1139 13 2153 N4 1234 N5 608 N6 1150 5112 2418 4876 2632 1248 2440
L1,0 , L10,0 B2 8 883 12 664 12 919 N5 489 WLx 315 WLx 525 3705 2645 3893 999 634 1071
L2,0 ,L9,0 B2 7 549 12 478 7 527 N2 311 WLx 243 N2 291 2131 1830 2038 634 486 583
X L3,0 ,L8,0 B1 7 2265 10 1048 25 2177 N5 1244 N5 520 ELY 1156 5168 2210 4935 265 1063 2452
L4,0 ,L7,0 B2 7 777 12 706 7 718 N2 423 WLx 351 N4 376 3174 2831 2892 860 706 759
L5,0 ,L6,0 B1 7 2805 12 2734 7 2827 N2 1405 WLx 1304 N2 1402 6679 6468 6745 3025 2792 3018
L5,0 ,L6,0 B2 7 978 12 700 12 905 N4 611 WLx 344 WLx 549 4209 2808 3818 1254 691 1126
L0,1 ,L0,9 B2 10 1082 9 1000 14 1082 N5 553 N5 420 WLy 553 4809 4332 4810 1129 850 1130
L0,2 ,L0,8 B1 10 4184 14 2851 14 4184 N5 1954 N5 1271 N7 1954 11609 6815 11610 4359 2716 4359
L0,3 ,L0,7 B1 9 947 9 650 9 947 N5 442 N4 286 N4 442 1987 1337 1988 896 575 896
Y L0,3 ,L0,7 B2 10 874 10 873 13 925 N4 409 N5 366 N2 481 3658 3654 3925 825 737 976
L0,4 ,L0,6 B1 9 1336 14 1327 9 1336 N2 583 N7 573 N2 583 2867 2845 2867 119 1174 1193
L0,5 B1 9 2095 13 1709 13 2095 N4 1058 N2 796 N2 1058 4721 3753 4722 2233 1656 850
L0,5 B2 9 804 9 774 9 745 N2 421 WLy 291 WLy 351 3306 3157 3018 585 585 706
Note: L4,0,L7,0: L4,0- L refer to layer , 4,0 - 4 refer row & 0 refer column; LC: Load Case ; 7:ͳǤͷሺ‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ܮܧ‬௑ ሻ; 8:ͳǤͷሺ‫ ܮܦ‬െ ‫ܮܧ‬௑ ሻ;
9:ͳǤͷ൫‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ൯Ǣ10:ͳǤͷ൫‫ ܮܦ‬െ ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ൯, 12:ͲǤͻ‫ ܮܦ‬െ ͳǤͷ‫ܮܧ‬௑ ; 13: ͲǤͻ‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ͳǤͷ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ; 14:ͲǤͻ‫ ܮܦ‬െ ͳǤͷ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ;25:ͲǤͻ‫ ܮܦ‬െ ͳǤͷܹ‫ܮ‬௬ ;
N2:ͳǤʹܺ‫ ܮ‬൅ ‫ ;ܮܧ‬N4: ͳǤͷܺ‫ ܮ‬൅ ‫ ;ܮܧ‬N5: ͳǤͷܺ‫ ܮ‬െ ‫ ;ܮܧ‬N7:ͲǤͻܺ‫ ܮ‬െ ‫ ; ܮܧ‬WLx: Wind Load in X- direction; WLy: Wind Load in
Y- direction; ELx: Earthquake Load in X- direction.

5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation 681

 Table A2 - Beam analysis and design results for shear at 5th floor
Shear (kN) Design
Present method- Proposed method-
D Gird ID BT Present method Proposed method
Ast-required (mm2) Ast-required (mm2)
end span mid span end span end span mid span end span end span mid span end span end span mid span end span
L1,0 , L10,0 B1 320 243 321 387 309 367 10φ @ 220 8φ @ 240 10φ @ 220 10φ @160 8φ @150 10φ @170
L1,0 , L10,0 B2 72 111 32 242 219 229 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8 φ @240 10φ @300 8 φ @270
L2,0 ,L9,0 B2 134 54 134 167 106 158 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8 φ @300 8φ @190 8φ @300
X L3,0 ,L8,0 B1 638 608 691 396 334 379 12φ @120 12φ @120 12φ @120 10φ @160 10φ @200 10φ @170
L4,0 ,L7,0 B2 244 149 242 213 144 195 8φ @ 230 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 240 8φ @300 8φ @300 8φ @300
L5,0 ,L6,0 B1 1460 1487 1514 722 740 758 12φ @120 12φ @120 12φ @120 12φ @120 12φ @120 12φ @120
L5,0 ,L6,0 B2 160 75 167 264 234 230 8 φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8φ @200 8φ @260 8φ @270
L0,1 ,L0,9 B2 204 156 204 270 226 270 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8φ @190 8φ @280 8φ @190
L0,2 ,L0,8 B1 656 565 656 762 707 762 12φ @120 12φ @120 12φ @120 12φ @120 12φ @120 12φ @120
L0,3 ,L0,7 B1 115 84 115 291 269 291 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8 φ @170 8 φ @190 8 φ @170
Y L0,3 ,L0,7 B2 248 171 94 176 202 261 8φ @ 230 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8 φ @300 8 φ @300 8 φ @200
L0,4 ,L0,6 B1 207 149 207 370 332 370 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 8φ @ 300 10φ @170 10φ @200 10φ @170
L0,5 B1 1866 1678 1866 245 220 245 12φ @120 12φ @120 12φ @120 8 φ @230 8 φ @300 8 φ @230
L0,5 B2 311 233 156 206 174 148 8φ @ 150 8φ @ 260 8φ @ 300 8 φ @300 8 φ @300 8 φ @300
Note: 8φ @ 300: 8mm φ @ 300 mm c/c.

682 5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation

 Table A3 - Column analysis and design details for C1, C2 ,C3, C4 and C5
Analysis Design
CT Floor level Present method Proposed method Present method Proposed method
LCPu (kN) Mux (kNm) Muy (kNm) LC Pu (kN) Mux (kNm) Muy (kNm) Ast required P Ast required P
Base to 5th 8 14890.36 454.57 180.30 N4 12259.39 946.25 968.15 28125.00 4.5 23750.00 3.8
th th
C1 5 to 10 78853.07 277.56 242.00 N1 8139.54 -189.48 -23.50 14250.00 3.8 11250.00 3.0
11th to roof 7 6660.33 286.60 50.16 N1 6264.42 -191.93 33.80 9600.00 3.2 9000.00 3.0
th
Base to 5 9
15612.57 25.00 1801.33 N4 12875.78 206.09 908.11 29375.00 4.7 25000.00 4.0
C2 5th to 10th 9 10400.00 27.86 2261.70 N1 8318.61 -70.70 196.72 15000.00 4.0 14250.00 3.8
th
11 to roof 9 7797.81 25.00 330.76 N1 6491.01 -54.60 -144.04 10500.00 3.5 9600.00 3.2
Gird ID
1,1 38257.54 -3970.63 -3579.61 31530.56 1884.21 1527.83 39960 3.6 23976 2.16
1,3 39875.89 -4044.28 3748.62 30822.41 1882.26 1605.21 41292 3.7 25308 2.3
9 N4
1,6 39778.09 -4095.29 3741.21 30779.09 1932.94 1601.67 38628 3.48 25974 2.34
1,9 37603.25 -3888.03 -3560.32 30847.92 1801.67 1519.31 34632 3.1 23976 2.2
4,1 31994.47 -3731.36 -3784.15 26380.27 1756.08 1616.09 33300 3.0 26640 2.4
7 N4
4,9 31174.95 -3691.94 -3761.01 25601.08 1721.33 1605.44 33230 3.0 25308 2.28
C3
7,1 31994.64 -3731.40 3784.02 26380.23 1756.15 1616.03 33300 3.0 26640 2.4
7 N4
7,9 31185.10 -3692.08 3760.85 25605.95 1721.38 1605.35 34632 3.12 25974 2.34
10,1 10 38265.58 -3970.68 -3578.83 N5 31535.88 1884.16 1527.51 41292 3.72 23976 2.16
10,3 39874.95 -4044.21 -3747.98 30822.90 1882.29 1604.95 41292 3.72 25308 2.28
10,6 9 39780.91 -4095.21 -3740.59 N4 30781.43 1932.90 1601.403 39960 3.6 25974 2.34
10,9 37590.16 -3887.89 3559.72 30846.85 1801.74 1519.03 35964 3.24 23976 2.16
5,2 45434.95 -2879.53 12890.09 39910.79 1456.82 5499.74 39960 3.60 26640 2.4
5,8 37038.00 -2812.65 -12839.35 33007.29 1302.97 5476.34 34632 3.1 25308 2.28
C4 7 N4
6,2 45439.30 -2879.55 -12890.10 39909.23 -1456.75 -5499.80 43956 3.96 26640 2.4
6,8 37042.63 -2812.72 12839.08 33009.17 -1303.00 5476.18 42624 3.84 25308 2.28
5,5 34197.68 4020.88 3458.40 29134.55 1958.80 -1475.02 39960 3.6 15984 1.50
5,6 31019.95 4052.76 3403.62 26160.07 1987.56 2093.17 37296 3.36 21312 1.92
C5 9 N4
6,4 34197.68 4020.88 3458.40 29132.07 1958.53 1474.99 39960 3.60 18648 1.68
6,6 31016.20 4052.11 -3403.64 26158.82 1987.23 -2093.41 37296 3.36 21312 1.92
Note: CT : Column Type; LC: Load Case for present method; NLC: Load Case for proposed method; 7: ͳǤͷሺ‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ܮܧ‬௑ ሻ;
8: ͳǤͷሺ‫ ܮܦ‬െ ‫ܮܧ‬௑ ሻ; 9: ͳǤͷ൫‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ൯,10: ͳǤͷ൫‫ ܮܦ‬െ ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ൯; P: Percentage of steel provided ; N1: ͳǤͷሺ‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ܮܮ‬ሻ;
଴Ǥହ ଴Ǥହ
N4: ͳǤͷ൫‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ܮܮ‬ሻ ൅ ሺ‫ܮܧ‬௫ ଶ ൅ ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ଶ ൯ ; N5: ͳǤͷ൫‫ ܮܦ‬൅ ‫ܮܮ‬ሻ െ ሺ‫ܮܧ‬௫ ଶ ൅ ‫ܮܧ‬௬ ଶ ൯ .

5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation 683

View publication stats