DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF G+12 WITH AND WITHOUT

FLOATING COLUMNS

ABSTRACT
In present scenario buildings with floating column is a typical feature in the modern
multi-storey construction in urban India. Such features are highly undesirable in building built in
seismically active areas. This study highlights the importance of explicitly recognizing the
presence of the floating column in the analysis of g+12 building. Alternate measures, involving
stiffness balance of the first storey and the storey above, are proposed to reduce the irregularity
introduced by the floating columns. The component backbone modelling for the concrete
columns also had to change so that convergence could be reached in the STAAD PRO and the
Perform-3D models. To prevent a backbone with negative stiffness, a conservative backbone was
used, in which the nominal capacity was taken at the onset of steel yielding, and then a line was
drawn to the peak moment capacity. At this point, the column was assumed to have lost any
significant capacity Because the rotational demand was relatively small for the columns in this
project, this ultimate point of rotation was never reached FEM codes are developed for 2D multi
storey frames with and without floating column to study the responses of the structure under
different earthquake excitation having different frequency content keeping the PGA and time
duration factor constant. The time history of floor displacement, inter storey drift, base shear,
overturning moment are computed for both the frames with and without floating column.
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Many urban multi-storey buildings in India today have open first storey as an

unavoidable feature. This is primarily being adopted to accommodate parking or reception

lobbies in the first storey. Whereas the total seismic base shear as experienced by a building

during an earthquake is dependent on its natural period, the seismic force distribution is

dependent on the distribution of stiffness and mass along the height.

The behaviour of a building during earthquakes depends critically on its overall shape, size and

geometry, in addition to how the earthquake forces are carried to the ground. The earthquake

forces developed at different floor levels in a building need to be brought down along the height

to the ground by the shortest path; any deviation or discontinuity in this load transfer path results

in poor performance of the building. Buildings with vertical setbacks (like the hotel buildings

with a few storey wider than the rest) cause a sudden jump in earthquake forces at the level of

discontinuity. Buildings that have fewer columns or walls in a particular storey or with unusually

tall storey tend to damage or collapse which is initiated in that storey. Many buildings with an

open ground storey intended for parking collapsed or were severely damaged in Gujarat during

the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Buildings with columns that hang or float on beams at an intermediate

storey and do not go all the way to the foundation, have discontinuities in the load transfer path

1.2 What is floating column

A column is supposed to be a vertical member starting from foundation level and

transferring the load to the ground. The term floating column is also a vertical element which
(due to architectural design/ site situation) at its lower level (termination Level) rests on a beam

which is a horizontal member. The beams in turn transfer the load to other columns below it.

Fig 1.1 Hanging or floating columns

There are many projects in which floating columns are adopted, especially above the ground

floor, where transfer girders are employed, so that more open space is available in the ground

floor. These open spaces may be required for assembly hall or parking purpose. The transfer

girders have to be designed and detailed properly, especially in earth quake zones. The column is

a concentrated load on the beam which supports it. As far as analysis is concerned, the column is

often assumed pinned at the base and is therefore taken as a point load on the transfer beam.

STAAD Pro, STAAD PRO and SAP2000 can be used to do the analysis of this type of structure.

Floating columns are competent enough to carry gravity loading but transfer girder must be of

adequate dimensions (Stiffness) with very minimal deflection.

Looking ahead, of course, one will continue to make buildings interesting rather than

monotonous. However, this need not be done at the cost of poor behaviour and earthquake safety

of buildings. Architectural features that are detrimental to earthquake response of buildings

should be avoided. If not, they must be minimized. When irregular features are included in

buildings, a considerably higher level of engineering effort is required in the structural design

and yet the building may not be as good as one with simple architectural features.
 Hence, the structures already made with these kinds of discontinuous members are

endangered in seismic regions. But those structures cannot be demolished, rather study can be

done to strengthen the structure or some remedial features can be suggested. The columns of the

first storey can be made stronger, the stiffness of these columns can be increased by retrofitting

or these may be provided with bracing to decrease the lateral deformation.

Some pictures showing the buildings built with floating columns:

Figure 1.2 240 Park Avenue South in New York, United States
Figure 1.3 Polestar in London, United Kingdom
 Figure 1.4 Chongqing Library in Chongqing, China

Figure 1.5 One-Housing-Group-by-Stock-Woolstencroft-in-London-United-Kingdom

6
1.3 Objective and scope of present work

The objective of the present work is to study the behaviour of g+12 buildings with floating

columns under earthquake excitations.

Finite element method is used to solve the dynamic governing equation. Linear time history

analysis is carried out for the multi-story buildings under different earthquake loading of varying

frequency content. The base of the building frame is assumed to be fixed.

 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURES

Current literature survey includes earthquake response of multi storey building frames with usual

columns. Some of the literatures emphasized on strengthening of the existing buildings in

seismic prone regions.

[1] Maison and Neuss (1984) Members of ASCE have performed the computer analysis of an

existing forty four story steel frame high-rise Building to study the influence of various

modelling aspects on the predicted dynamic properties and computed seismic response

behaviours. The predicted dynamic properties are compared to the building's true properties as

previously determined from experimental testing. The seismic response behaviours are computed

using the response spectrum and equivalent static load methods.

[2] Maison and Ventura (1991) Members of ASCE computed dynamic properties and response

behaviours OF THIRTEEN-STORY BUILDING and this result are compared to the true values

as determined from the recorded motions in the building during two actual earthquakes and

shown that state-of-practice design type analytical models can predict the actual dynamic

properties.

[3] Arlekar, Jain & Murty, (1997)said that such features were highly undesirable in buildings

built in seismically active areas; this has been verified in numerous experiences of strong shaking

during the past earthquakes. They highlighted the importance of explicitly recognizing the
presence of the open first storey in the analysis of the building, involving stiffness balance of the

open first storey and the storey above, were proposed to reduce the irregularity introduced by the

open first storey.

[4] Awkar and Lui (1997) studied responses of multi-story flexibly connected frames

subjected to earthquake excitations using a computer model. The model incorporates connection

flexibility as well as geometrical and material nonlinearities in the analyses and concluded that

the study indicates that connection flexibility tends to increase upper stories' inter-storey drifts

but reduce base shears and base overturning moments for multi-story frames.

[5] Balsamoa, Colombo, Manfredi, Negro & Prota (2005) performed pseudo dynamic tests on

an RC structure repaired with CFRP laminates. The opportunities provided by the use of Carbon

Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) composites for the seismic repair of reinforced concrete (RC)

structures were assessed on a full-scale dual system subjected to pseudo dynamic tests in the

ELSA laboratory. The aim of the CFRP repair was to recover the structural properties that the

frame had before the seismic actions by providing both columns and joints with more

deformation capacity. The repair was characterized by a selection of different fiber textures

depending on the main mechanism controlling each component. The driving principles in the

design of the CFRP repair and the outcomes of the experimental tests are presented in the paper.

Comparisons between original and repaired structures are discussed in terms of global and local

performance. In addition to the validation of the proposed technique, the experimental results

will represent a reference database for the development of design criteria for the seismic repair of

RC frames using composite materials.

[6] Vassilopoulos and Beskos (2006) Performed rational and efficient seismic design

methodology for plane steel frames using advanced methods of analysis in the framework of

Euro codes 8 and 3 . This design methodology employs an advanced finite element method of

analysis that takes into account geometrical and material nonlinearities and member and frame

imperfections. It can sufficiently capture the limit states of displacements, strength, stability and

damage of the structure.

[7] Bardakis & Dritsas (2007) Evaluated the American and European procedural assumptions

for the assessment of the seismic capacity of existing buildings via push over analyses. The

FEMA and the Euro code-based GRECO procedures have been followed in order to assess a

four-storeyed bare framed building and a comparison has been made with available experimental

results.

[8] Mortezaei et al (2009)Recorded data from recent earthquakes which provided evidence that

ground motions in the near field of a rupturing fault differ from ordinary ground motions, as they

can contain a large energy, or ‘‘directivity” pulse. This pulse can cause considerable damage

during an earthquake, especially to structures with natural periods close to those of the pulse.

Failures of modern engineered structures observed within the near-fault region in recent

earthquakes have revealed the vulnerability of existing RC buildings against pulse-type ground

motions. This may be due to the fact that these modern structures had been designed primarily

using the design spectra of available standards, which have been developed using stochastic

processes with relatively long duration that characterizes more distant ground motions. Many

recently designed and constructed buildings may therefore require strengthening in order to

perform well when subjected to near-fault ground motions. Fiber Reinforced Polymers are
Considered to be a viable alternative, due to their relatively easy and quick installation, low life

cycle costs and zero- maintenance requirements

[9] Ozyigit (2009)Performed free and forced in-plane and out-of-plane vibrations of frames are

investigated. The beam has a straight and a curved part and is of circular cross section. A

concentrated mass is also located at different points of the frame with different mass ratios. FEM

is used to analyze the problem.

[10] Williams, Gardoni & Bracci (2009) studied the economic benefit of a given retrofit

procedure using the framework details. A parametric analysis was conducted to determine how

certain parameters affect the feasibility of a seismic retrofit. A case study was performed for the

example buildings in Memphis and San Francisco using a modest retrofit procedure. The results

of the parametric analysis and case study advocate that, for most situations, a seismic retrofit of

an existing building is more financially viable in San Francisco than in Memphis.

[11] Garcia et al [10] (2010) tested a full-scale two-storey RC building with poor detailing in the

beam column joints on a shake table as part of the European research project ECOLEADER.

After the initial tests which damaged the structure, the frame was strengthened using carbon fibre

reinforced materials (CFRPs) and re-tested. This paper investigates analytically the efficiency of

the strengthening technique at improving the seismic behaviour of this frame structure. The

experimental data from the initial shake table tests are used to calibrate analytical models. To

simulate deficient beam column joints, models of steel concrete bond slip and bond-strength

degradation under cyclic loading were considered

The Resulted in substantial improvement of the seismic performance of the damaged RC frame.

It was shown that, after the CFRP intervention, the damaged building would experience on

average 65% less global damage compared to the original structure if it was subjected to real

earthquake excitations.

[12] Niroomandi, Maheri, Maheri & Mahini (2010)Retrofitted an eight-storey frame strength

ended previously with a steel bracing system with web bonded CFRP. Comparing the seismic

performance of the FRP retrofitted frame at joints with that of the steel X-braced retrofitting

method, it was concluded that both retrofitting schemes have comparable abilities to increase the

ductility reduction factor and the over-strength factor; the former comparing better on ductility

and the latter on over-strength. The steel bracing of the RC frame can be beneficial if a

substantial increase in the stiffness and the lateral load resisting capacity is required. Similarly,

FRP retrofitting at joints can be used in conjunction with FRP retrofitting of beams and columns

to attain the desired increases.

 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLAGY

INTRODUCTION TO STAAD PRO:

STAAD.Pro is powerful design software licensed by Bentley. Staad stands for structural
analysis and design
Any object which is stable under a given loading can be considered as structure. So first
find the outline of the structure, where as analysis is the estimation of what are the type of loads
that acts on the beam and calculation of shear force and bending moment comes under analysis
stage. Design phase is designing the type of materials and its dimensions to resist the load. this
we do after the analysis.
To calculate s.f.d and b.m.d of a complex loading beam it takes about an hour. So when it
comes into the building with several members it will take a week. Staad pro is a very powerful
tool which does this job in just an hour’s staad is a best alternative for high rise buildings.
Now a days most of the high rise buildings are designed by staad which makes a
compulsion for a civil engineer to know about this software.
These software can be used to carry rcc ,steel, bridge , truss etc according to various country
codes.
 Staad Editor:

Staad has very great advantage to other software’s i.e., staad editor. staad editor is the
programming

For the structure we created and loads we taken all details are presented in programming format
in staad editor. This program can be used to analyze another structures also by just making some
modifications, but this require some programming skills. So load cases created for a structure can
be used for another structure using staad editor.
Limitations of Staad pro:

1.Huge output data

2.Even analysis of a small beam creates large output.

3.Unable to show plinth beams.

Staad foundation:

Staad foundation is a powerful tool used to calculate different types of foundations. It is

also licensed by Bentley software’s. All Bentley software’s cost about 10 lakhs and so all
engineers can’t use it due to heavy cost.
Analysis and design carried in Staad and post processing in staad gives the load at
various supports. These supports are to be imported into these software to calculate the footing
details i.e., regarding the geometry and reinforcement details.
This software can deal different types of foundations

SHALLOW (D<B)

1. Isolated (Spread) Footing

2.Combined (Strip) Footing

3.Mat (Raft) Foundation

DEEP (D>B)

1.Pile Cap
2. Driller Pier

1. Isolated footing is spread footing which is common type of footing.

2. Combined Footing or Strap footing is generally laid when two columns are very near
to each other.
3. Mat foundation is generally laid at places where soil has less soil bearing capacity.

4. pile foundation is laid at places with very loose soils and where deep excavations are

required. So depending on the soil at type we has to decide the type of foundation

required.

Also lot of input data is required regarding safety factors, soil, materials used
should be given in respective units.
After input data is give software design the details for each and every footing
and gives the details regarding

1. Geometry of footing

2. Reinforcement

3. Column layout

4. Graphs

5. Manual calculations

These details will be given in detail for each and every column.

Another advantage of foundations is even after the design; properties of the

members can be updated if required.
The following properties can be updated

` Column Position

` Column Shape

`
Column
Size

` Load Cases

` Support List

BASIC ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING:

The analysis of post-tensioned floor systems differs from a reinforced concrete design
approach owing to the positive effect that the tendons have on the structure. In RCC, the
reinforcement is initially unstressed; the stress in the reinforcement results from the
deformation and cracking of the structure under applied load. On the other hand, the
tendons in a post-tensioned floor are actively stressed by the jacks so that they are loaded
before the application of other loads. The force in the tendon is chosen by the designer and
does not vary much with the application of serviceability Limit state dead and live loads.
The analysis of equivalent frames may be undertaken by hand, using moment distribution
or flexibility methods or by computer using plane frame analysis programs. There are also
available on the market several; computer programs specially written for post tensioned
flooring system. These programs not only undertake the analysis of the frame under
applied loading and loading from the tendons, but also calculate the flexural stresses
Structural layout:
This has already been discussed. It is the most important decision in the design process.
Unless previous experience or over riding factors dictate the exact form & section, several
possibilities should be studied although the designer should be able to limit the possible
solutions by considering the various constraints and by rough design and costing exercises.
Loading:
The loading for serviceability Limit State should consider the dead load and post-
tensioning effects acting with those combinations of live loads which result in maximum
stresses. At transfer of prestressing only the dead loads present during stressing, together
with the post-tensioning effects before losses due to creep, shrinkage and relaxation should
be considered in obtaining stresses. Where the applied loads change significantly during
construction or phased stressing is employed, the various stages should each be checked
for transfer stress limits.
Equivalent Frame Analysis:
It is usual to divide the structure into sub-frame elements in each direction. Each frame
usually comprises one line of columns together with beam/slab elements of one bay width.
The frames chosen for analysis should cover all the element types of the complete
structure. The use of the equivalent frame method does not take account of the two-
dimensional elastic load distribution effects automatically. It will give different support
reactions from the analyses in the two orthogonal directions unless the width of slab will
be full panel width.
 CHAPTER- 4

DESIGNS

 DESIGN OF SLABS

 LOADS ON BEAMS

 DESIGN OF BEAMS

 LOADS OF COLUMNS

 DESIGN OF COLOUMNS

 DESIGN OF FOOTINGS

DESIGN OF SLAB

Slabs are to be designed under limit state method by reference of IS 456:2000.

• When the slab are supported in two way direction it acts as two way supported
slab.

• A two way slab is economical compared to one way slab.

SLAB DESIGN:

fck = 15 N/mm2 fy =415 N/m2

Span

i. Shorter span:- Lx = 5.8m longer span:-Ly =7.62m

ii. Check Lx/Ly= 7.62/5.8 =1.3<2

Hence the slab has to be designed as “two way slab”.

iii. Providing over all depth of slab as 5”, 120mm eff. depth= D-15-Ø/2
=120-15-10/2=100mm

iv. Condition:- supported on four sides.

v. Load calculation:-

Dead load = 25x0.12x1 = 3.0KN/m

Live load =2x1 = 2.0KN/m
Floor finish =1x1 = 1x1KN/m
= 6.0 KN/m
vi. Bending moment calculation:- (as per IS code 456-2000) Type of panel:- Two adjacent edges
are discontinuous

ax(+) = 0.049 ax(-) = 0.065

ay(+) = 0.035 ay(-) = 0.047

(+ve) B.M at mid span in shorter directions. Mx(+) = ax(+)wlx2

= 0.049x6x5.8^2= 9.9kn-m factored B.M = 9.9x1.5 =14.85kn-m

Spacing and diameter:

As per sp-16.

Provide 8mmØ bars at 210mm spacing.

(-ve) B.M at continuous edge in shorter direction. Mx(-) =ax (-) wlx2

=0.062x6x(5.8)^2 =13.12kn-m

factored B.M = 13.12x1.5=19.67kn-m

(+ve) B.M at mid span in longer directions. My(+)= ay(+)wlx2

= 0.035x6x(5.8)^2 =7.06kn-m

factored B.M=7.06x1.5 =10.69kn-m

(-ve) B.M at continuous edge in longer direction.

My(-ve) = ay (-ve)wlx2 =0.047x6x(5.8)^2 =9.48kn-m

factored B.M=9.48x1.5 =14.22kn m.

Check for depth:

Permissible depth=100mm

Mu.lim =0.36.Xumax(1-0.42Xumax)fckbd^2 d d

14.86x10^6= 0.36.Xumax (1-0.42x0.48)15x1000d^2

d= 84.71 < 100mm

Hence ok.
DESIGN OF BEAMS

• Beam is a member which transfers the loads from slab to columns

and then foundation to soil.

• Beam is a tension member.

• Span of slabs, which decide the spacing of beams.

• Following are the loads which are acting on the beams.

 Dead load

 Live load

 Wind load

LOADS ON BEAMS:

B1: BEAM

SPAN=5.8m (shorter span)

Assuming beam size = 9”x16”(230x405mm)

Height of the wall-10’-3m

Load calculations

 Wall load - 0.23x3x19 =13.11Kn/m

 Self load – 0.23x0.406x25 =2.33Kn/m

 Slab load –

W = 6KN

Lx = 5.8

WLx/3= (6x5.8)/3 = 11.6Kn/m

Total load = 13.11+2.33+11.6 = 27.04Kn/m

DESIGN OF STIRRUPS:

B1:BEAM

Calation of shear force

Va= Vb = total load 2

=27.04x5.8 =78.416KN 2

Calculation of normal shear

Tv =Vu =1.5x78.416x10^3 =1.37

Bd 230x373

Calculation of permissible shear stress

Tc = % of tension steel

Pt = Ast x 100 Bd

Ast = 2x16^2xp =402.12mm^4

Pt = 402.12x100 = 0.60%

230x373

Tc =0.50

Tc < Tv 0.05 < 0.76

Hence provide shear reinforcement.

Design of shear:

Vs = (Tv-Tc)bd =(0.76-0.50)x230x373 =22.30KN

Calculation: Vus =22.30 =0.59 KN/cm D(cm) 37.3

From sp-16 table no 62 we will get dia & spacing.

Hence provide 6mm dia @ 20 cm c/c spacing.

Check for spacing:

Spacing should be provided min of the following.

(a) 0.75d = 0.75x373 =279.75 mm

(b) Asv fy =2x(6^2xp/4)x250 =153.2mm 0.4b 0.4x230

(c) design spacing 45cm c/c

Hence provide 6mm dia stirrups @ 15 cm c/c.

LOADS ON BEAMS:

B2: BEAM

SPAN=7.62m (longer span)

Assuming beam size = 9”x16”(230x405mm)

Height of the wall-10’-3m

Load calculations

 Wall load - 0.23x3x19 =13.11Kn/m

 Self load – 0.23x0.406x25 =2.33Kn/m

 Slab load –

W = 6KN

Ly = 7.62

WLy/3= (6x7.62)/3 = 15.24Kn/m

Total load = 13.11+2.33+15.24 = 30.68Kn/m

DESIGN OF STIRRUPS:

B2:BEAM

• Calculation of shear force

Va=Vb= total load 2

=30.68x7.62 =116.89KN 2

• Calculation of normal shear

Tv =Vu =1.5x116.89x10^3 =2.04

Bd 230x373
 • Calculation of permissible shear stress

Tc = % of tension steel

Pt = Ast x 100

Bd

Ast = 2x16^2xp =402.12mm^24

Pt = 402.12x100 = 0.60%

230x373

Tc =0.50

Tc < Tv 0.05 < 0.85

Hence provide shear reinforcement.

Design of shear:

Vs = (Tv-Tc)bd

=(0.85- 0.50)x230x373 =30.02KN

Calculation: Vus =230.02 =0.89KN/cm D(cm) 37.3

From sp-16 table no 62 we will get dia & spacing.

Hence provide 6mm dia @ 15cm c/c spacing

Check for spacing:

Spacing should be provided min of the following.

(a) 0.75d = 0.75x373 =279.75 mm

(b) Asv fy =2x(6^2xp/4)x250 =153.2mm 0.4b

0.4x230

(c) design spacing 45cm c/c

Hence provide 6mm dia stirrups @ 15 cm c/c

DESIGN OF BEAMS:

Mu at Left span = 11.577 KN-m

Mu at Mid span = 19.18 KN-m

Mu at Right span = 20.36KN-m

Check for spacing:

Calculation limiting moment of resistances:

Mu = 11.577 KN-m

Mu limit =0.138 fck bd2

= 0.138x20x230x305^2

= 59.05 KN-m

Mu < Mu limit

Hence it is designed as simply reinforcement beam using sp-16 Mu =11.577x10^6 =1.39 bd 230x305^2

Refer table no.2 at sp-16 and read out the value o percentage of reinforcement Corresponding to fy = 415 N/m
and fck = 20N/mm^2

For Mu = 1.39 Pt = ? bd^2

1.35 0.409

1.40 0.426

1.39 ?

Pt = 0.422 %

Area of reinforcement

Pt = Astx100

Bd =0.422x230x405

100

= 393.093 mm^2
Ast required = 393.093 mm^2

Ast provided:

Hence provide 3 bars & 12 mm dia

Ast provide =400 mm^2

Reinforcement of mid span:-

Calculate limiting moment of resistances Mu =19.18 KN-m

Mulimt = 0.138 fck bd^2 =0.138x20x230x305^2 = 59.05 KN-m

Mu < Mu limit

Hence it is designed as singly reinforcement.

BY USING SP-16

Mu =19.18x10^6

Bd^2 230x305^2

= 0.66

Refer table no.2 at sp-16and read out the value of percentage of reinforcement Corresponding to fy =
415N/mm^2 and fck = 20 N/mm2
Mu pt Bd^2

0.65 0.187

0.70 0.203

0.66 ?
Pt =0.190% Reinforcement

Pt = Astx100

Bd =0.19x230x305*100

=133.285mm2 Ast provided Hence provided 2mm bars & 12mm dia Ast

provided = 155.2mm2
Reinforcement of right span:-

Calculate limiting moment of resistance:-Mu =20.36 KN-m

Mu limit = 0.138 fck bd^2 =0.138x20x230x305^2 = 59.05KN-m

Mu < Mu limit

Hence it is designed as singly reinforcement. BY USING SP-16

Pt = 0.422%

Reinforcement = Pt = Ast x100 bd

Ast =0.422x230x305*100

= 296.033mm2 Ast provided

Hence provide 3 bars and 12mm dia
Ast provided =300mm^2.

S.NO TYPE OF ROOF LOAD FLOOR LOAD

LOAD

1. Wall load (5.8+7.62)x0.115x 0.91x19 (5.8+7.62)x0.23x3x19

2 2
=12.09KN
=29.32KN

2. Slab load (5.8+7.62)x6 (5.8+7.62)x6

2 2
= 40.26KN =40.26KN

3. Self wt. of beam 0.23x0.406x(5.5+7.62)x25 0.23x0.406x(5.5+7.62)x25

2 2
=25KN =25KN

Total load
77.35KN 94.58KN
 Total loads on column:

Column Axial load:

Pu = 167 KN

Cross section-230x230mm calculation:

Pu =167x10^3 = 0.15

fck*b*20x230x230

Calculation of Eccentricity:

e= 1 + B
500 30

= 4640 + 230 = 16.94m

500 30

e≤20 mm

Mue = Pu*e

= 167*0.020

= 3.34 Kn-m

Mue = 3.34x10^6
= 0.0112
fck bd^2 20x230x230^2

d’ = 0.2 D

P = 0.02 fck

P =0.02*fck =0.02x20

=0.4% minimum 0.8% area of steel = 0.8 Bd =

0.8x230x230 = 423.2 mm
LEAST OF THE FOLLOWING:

a) 16dia of main reinforcement=16x12 =192 mm.

b) 48dia = 48x12 = 576 mm.

Provide 6 mm dia. @ 192 mm c/c when main bars size is 12 mm

DESIGN OF FOOTING

Size of column (b) 230x380(a) Load = 400.69KN

Self wt. of footing = 10%

Bearing capacity of soil = 250 Kn/m2 Area of footing

Total load = 440.76KN

Area of footing = 440.76/250 = 1.76m2

the side of the footing be in the same ratio of column =

0.23x((0.23/0.38)x0.23) =1.76

= 4.48m

Short side of footing = 0.23*4.48 = 1.0 m

Long side of footing = 0.38*4.48 = 1.70 m

Proved a rectangle footing 1mx1.7m

Up ward soil pressure = 440.76/(1*1.7)

= 259.27 Kn/m2 = 260 KN/m2

BENDING MOMENT CALCULATION:

Maximum bending moment along y- direction longer direction

Mxx = q x1/8 (B-b)^2

=260x1.7/8 (1-0.23)^2 = 32.75 KN-m

Maximum bending moment along x- direction shorter direction

Myy = q-b/8 (B-b)2

 = 260x1/8(1.7-0.38)62

= 56.62 KN-m

Depth of footing:

Depth of footing for moment consideration d = v Myy/Qb = v

56.62x10^6/0.91x1000

d =249.43 say 250 mm

check for shear (two- way shear) V= q[Lxb-(a+d)(b+d)]

=250[1.7x1-(0.38+250)(.230+250)] =363.37 KN

Normal shear stress:

Tc = 0.65 N/mm2.

V =363.37x1063 = 654.72 N/mm^2

[2(a+d)(b+d)d][2(0.38+0.25)(0.23+0.25)0.25]

Allowable shear stress:

Tv = k x Tc where k = 0.5+ 0.23/0.38

=1.10 k>1.1 Ka = 1.0 x 16 x fck Ka = 0.78 N/ mm2

Tv < Tc safe to compute normal shear stress due to one way action area of tensile
steel required.

Ast(yy) = Myy = 56.62x10^6

0.91X bd =0.91x 250x 230= Ast = 1082.08 mm2

Ast x 100 = 1082.08x100 =0.43%

bd 100x250x0.23

From table 23 Tc = allowable shear stress 0.27 N/ mm2

One way shear:

The critical section along (1-1) L – a – d =1700 – 2( 380 + 250) =410 mm

Shear force:

Upward pressure V= 260X1X0.410 =106.6

Normal shear:

Tv = V = 106.6 x10^3 Bd 1x1000x250 =0.42 N/mm2

Tv >Tc in case of one way shear The effective depth to be increase

Let the eff. Depth be 350 mm

V =260 [1.7x1-(0.38-0.350)+(0.23+0.35)]

V =101.4KN

Norminal shear Tv = 101.4x103

2[(0.38+0.35)+(0.23+0.35)0.35] = 0.110N/mm2

Tv >Tc 0.6054 > 0.110 Hence safe

Adopt eff depth = 35 mm

Eff cover = 50 mm

Overall depth = 400 mm

Reinforcement in longitudinal direction:

Ast = 32.75 x106 0.87x230x380

=447.08 mm2

Spacing of 12 mm mid steel leaving a clearance of 250mm on the either side

S = 950*p*12

447.68/4 =239.99 mm

Provide 12mm bars at 230 mm c/c

Reinforcement in shorter direction:

Ast/ = Myy = 56.62x10^6

bd 230x350x0.90
= 781.50 mm2

The reinforcement in the central band width 1.7 provide in accordance with

= Reinforcement in central band width / total reinforcement in shorter direction.

= 1.7/1 = 1.7

Spacing of 10 mm dia bars at 190mmc/c

The steel for the remaining width = 781.50 -578.94 =202.56 mm2

Provide 4 bars of 12mm dia on either of the central band width

Developed length:
From IS 456-2000 Ld = dia vs 4Tbd

=0.87xfy x dia =0.87x415xdia =47 dia =47x12 =528mm

Reinforcement Details:

The minimum steel required for dowel bars or load transferring bar is 0.5% of column As =
0.5/100 x230x380

=1746 mm2

No.of 12mm dia = 437x12^2 =3.86 p/4

Provide 4 nos of bars of 12mmbars development length of dowel bars

for 12 mm dia Ld =528 mm

The dowel is to be extended by 528mm into column. Available depth in footing

Effective to the centre of 20 mm dia 350mm Deduct ½ x 20 =10 mm

Deduct 12 mm dia
Net available distance =[350-10-12] =328

Provide bent of bars to [528-328] =200 mm.

CHAPTER-5

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

Figure shows g+12 building without floating column
Figure shows Dead load acting on building
Figure shows Live load acting on building
Figure shows Wind load acting on building
Figure shows Design of Beam
Figure shows Deflection of Beam
Figure shows Property of Beam
Figure shows Shear bending of Beam
Figure shows Property of Beam
Figure shows Shear bending of Beam
Figure shows Bending of Beam
Figure shows Concrete Quantity of Structure
Figure shows g+12 building floating columns
Figure shows Dead load acting on building
Figure shows Live load acting on building
Figure shows Wind load acting on building
Figure shows Design of Beam
Figure shows Deflection of Beam
Figure shows Shear Bending of Beam
Figure shows Displacement of Structure
Figure shows Concrete quantity of Structure
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

The behaviour of multi-storey building with and without floating column is studied under
different earthquake excitation. The compatible time history and Electro earthquake data has
been considered. The PGA of both the earthquake has been scaled to 0.2g and duration of
excitation are kept same. A finite element model has been developed to study the dynamic
behaviour of multi -story frame. The static and free vibration results obtained using present finite
element code are validated. The dynamic analysis of frame is studied by varying the column
dimension. It is concluded that with increase in ground floor column the maximum displacement,
inter storey drift values are reducing. The base shear and overturning moment vary with the
change in column dimension.
The STAAD PRO and Perform-3D models had similar results. The effective period
calculated from the Perform-3D model was in good agreement with the STAAD PRO model that
utilized cracked section properties from moment-curvature analysis, only 1.7% longer. The NSP
in STAAD PRO showed slightly better performance than the NSP in Perform-3D. Although the
complexity in the two models thwarted expectations for exactly the same results, a property that
could have affected the data output is the assignment of the rotation gage in Perform-3D. The
rotation gage assignment for this study was based on the plastic hinge length anticipated at the
wall’s ultimate displacement capacity. In reality, the extent of hinging was constantly changing
with respect to building response at each given displacement interval, and thus the rotational
gages should theoretically change size in correlation to the changing extent of plasticity. Because
maximum rotations were of the greatest interest in this project, the maximum anticipated extent
of hinging was decided to be a reasonable estimate for an appropriate rotation gage length.
 REFERENCES

[1] Maison Bruce F. and Neuss Carl F., “Dynamic analysis of a forty four story building”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 7, Page No:1559- 572,July, 1985. ISSN: 2395
-0056
[2] Maison and Ventura (1991) ISSN: 0924-0829 Pages 7787-7594
[3] Arlekar Jaswant N, Jain Sudhir K. and Murty C.V.R, (1997), “Seismic Response of RC
Frame Buildings with Soft First Storeys”. Proceedings of the CBRI Golden Jubilee Conference
on Natural Hazards in Urban Habitat, 1997, New Delhi.
[4] Awkar J. C. and Lui E.M, “Seismic analysis and response of multistory semirigid frames”,
Journal of Engineering Structures, Volume 21, Issue 5, Page no: 425-442, 1997.
[5] Agarwal Pankaj, Shrikhande Manish (2009), “Earthquake resistant design of structures”,
PHI learning private limited, New Delhi.
[6] Balsamoa A, Colombo A, Manfredi G, Negro P & Prota P (2005), ”Seismic behavior of a
full-scale RC frame repaired using CFRP laminates”. Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 769–
780.
[7] Bardakis V.G., Dritsos S.E. (2007), “Evaluating assumptions for seismic assessment of
existing buildings “.Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 223–233.
[8] Brodericka B.M., Elghazouli A.Y. and Goggins J, “Earthquake testing and response analysis
of concentrically-braced sub-frames”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research ,Volume 64,
Issue 9, Page no: 997-1007,2008.

[9] Garcia Reyes, Hajirasouliha Iman, Pilakoutas Kypros, (2010),”Seismic behaviour of deficient
RC frames strengthened with CFRP composites”. Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3075-3085.
[10] Hartley Gilbert and Abdel-Akher Ahmed, “Analysis of building frames” Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 2, Page no:468-483, 1993.

[11] K. N. V. Prasada Rao, K. Seetharamulu, and S. Krishnamoorthy, “Frames with staggered

panels: experimental study”, Journal of Structural Engineering, VOL 110, No. 5, Page no: 1134-
1148, 1984.
[12] Maison Bruce F. and Ventura Carlos E., “DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THIRTEEN-STORY
BUILDING”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 12, Page no:3783-3803,1991.