International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013. ©IJAET ISSN: 22311963
EFFECT OF DIFFERENT POSITION OF SHEAR WALL ON DEFLECTION IN HIGH RISE BUILDING Rajesh Jayarambhai Prajapati1 &Vinubhai. R. Patel2 1 M.Tech. Research Scholar & 2 Assistant Professor, Applied Mechanics & Structural Engg.Department, Faculty of technology & Engineering. M. S. University of Baroda, Vadodara – 390001, Gujarat, India.
ABSTRACT This paper discusses importance of the lateral stiffness of a building on its wind and seismic design. To reduce damage in the event of wind and an earthquake, it is desirable to have large lateral stiffness. Shear walls contribute significant lateral stiffness, strength, and overall ductility and energy dissipation capacity. Therefore we have introduced shear walls at different location on plan of building like side centre shear wall, corner shear wall, shear wall at near to centre of building plan. The effect of shear wall on deflection is studied in A1, B1, C1& D1 models of 30 storied building.
KEYWORDS: Deflection, position of shear wall.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Tallness, however, is a relative matter, and tall building cannot be defined in specific terms related just to height or to the number of floors. From the structural engineer’s point of view, however, a tall building may be define as one that, because of its height, is affected by lateral forces due to wind or earthquake actions to an extent that they play an important role in the structural design .The influence of these action must therefore be considered from the very beginning of design process. Tall towers and building have fascinated mankind from the beginning of civilization, their construction being initially for defence and subsequently for ecclesiastical purposes. The growth in modern tall building construction, however, which began in the 1880s, has been largely for commercial residential purpose. Tall commercial buildings are primarily a response to the demand by business activities to be as close to each other, and to the city centre, as possible, thereby putting intense pressure on the available land space. Loading on tall building differs from loading on low-rise building in its accumulation into much larger structural forces, in the increased significance of wind loading, and in the greater importance of dynamic effects. The collection of gravity loading over a large number of stories in a tall building can produce column loads of an order higher than those in low-rise building surface, but also with greater intensity at the greater heights and with a larger moment arm about the base than on a low-rise building. Although wind loading on a low-rise building usually has an insignificant influence on the design of the structure, wind on high-rise building can have a dominant influence on its structural arrangement and design in the wind may have to be considered in assessing the loading applied by the wind. In earthquake regions, any inertial loads from the shaking of the ground may well exceed the loading due to wind and, therefore, be dominant in influencing the building’s structural form, design, and cost. As an inertial problem, the building’s dynamic response plays a large part in influencing, and in estimating, the effective loading on structure.
1848
Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013. ©IJAET ISSN: 22311963
II.
GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 Types of Models The mathematical models developed in ETABS V9.5 for the purpose of this study are having the following: Way to read models (A1, B1, C1 and D1) A=Without Shear Wall Model B=Side Center Shear Wall Model C=Corner Shear Wall Model D=Shear Wall At Center Of Building Plan Model 1=Cross Section Of Column Change General Geometry Data of 30 Story Building for Model (A1, B1, C1, D1) Plan dimension : 44.16 m × 10.98 m Total height of building from ground level : 93.24 m Structural plan of building as shown in figure 1
(A) PLAN OF BUILDING
(B) FRONT VIEW
(C) SIDE VIEW
(D) 3 D VIEW
Figure 1 (A) Plan, (B) Front View, (C) Side view, (D) 3 D View of 30 Story Building
Type of soil : Medium Total Story : Basement +Ground +29 Basement story height : 3.9 m Ground floor height and first floor height : 3.9 m Typical floor height : 3.048 m Grade of steel use in building : Fe500 only Grade of concrete use in building : M45 only Autoclave aerated block (AAC BLOCK) used instead of brick masonry work in building
1849
Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013. ©IJAET ISSN: 22311963 TABLE 1 Property of Autoclave Aerated Block PROPERTY OF AAC BLOCK DRY DENSITY (Kg/m3)
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH N/mm2
STATIC MODULUS OF ELASTICITY (KN/mm2
400
1.3-2.8
0.18-1.17
500
2.0-4.4
1.24-1.84
600
2.8-6.3
1.76-2.64
700
3.9-8.5
2.42-3.58
For Models (A1, B1, C1, D1) Column size (In mm) STORY 27 TO 31 : 300 × 600 mm STORY 23 TO 26 : 450 × 600 mm STORY 18 TO 22 : 525 × 825 mm STORY 11 TO 17 : 600 × 1050 mm STORY 6 TO 10 : 825 × 1050 mm STORY 1 TO 5 : 825 × 1350 mm Slab Thickness : 150 mm Beam size (Basement story and ground floor story) : 600 × 900 mm (1st story to 5th story) : 450 × 750 mm (6th story to 30th story) : 450 × 600 mm Thickness of service shear wall (lift purpose) SW1 : 150 mm SW2 : 200 mm Thickness of other shear wall SW : 300 mm Along shorter direction of a building plan length of SW : 4.0 m Along longer direction of a building plan length of SW : 3.0 m Periphery wall (used autoclave aerated block) : 230 mm Different Location of Shear Wall in Plan
A1 MODEL
B1 MODEL
C1 MODEL
D1 MODEL
FIGURE 2 B+G+29 Storey Building Plan W/O Sw Model(A1), Side Centre Sw Model(B1), Corner Sw Model(C1), Sw At Centre Of Building Plan Model(D1) With Changing C/S Of Column
III.
LOAD CONSIDERED
1) Floor finish load
1850
Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013. ©IJAET ISSN: 22311963 For all floor levels 2) Imposed Load (Live load) For all Floor Levels 3) Wall Load on Periphery For Terrace Level For Typical Floor Level 4) Wind Load: (only in Y-direction) As per IS 875(part 3) – 1987 Wind speed Vb (m/s) Terrain category Structure class Risk coefficient (k1 Factor) Topography (k3 factor) For wind co-efficient referred Figure 4A, Page no 39 in IS-875(part-3)-1987. 5) Earthquake Load: As per IS 1893:2002 Considering, Seismic zone Zone Factor Type of Soil Importance Factor Response Reduction Factor
IV.
=1.5 kN/m2 = 4 kN/m2 = 1.68 kN/m = 4.66 kN/m
= 44 =2 =C =1 =1
= III = 0.16 = Medium Soil =1 = 5.
PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The mathematical models developed are subjected to dead load, live load, wind load and earthquake load to analysis and design using ETABS VERSION 9.5 software. In this term we are taking maximum deflection according to DCON 6 wind combination (DCON 6 = 1.5 DL + 1.5 WL). In 30 story building we have compared different models (Models A1, B1, C1, D1) with respect to displacement.
V.
RESULTS
The analysis and design results for different models are shown in tabular and graphical form, their results are compared with each other. Notation “D” is used for deflection in showing the results in the tabular form: D - Displacement in mm TABLE 2 Displacement for (Model A1, B1, C1, D1) SR NO
1851
STORY NAME
A1
DISPLACEMENT “D” IN (mm) B1 C1
D1
1
STORY 31
360.52
221.95
88.05
290.25
2
STORY 30
347.04
213.62
83.53
279.06
3
STORY 29
333.52
205.23
79.02
267.82
4
STORY 28
319.98
196.77
74.57
256.51
5
STORY 27
306.39
188.24
70.20
245.13
6
STORY 26
292.74
179.64
65.91
233.69
7
STORY 25
278.91
171.02
61.71
222.24
8
STORY 24
265.00
162.36
57.60
210.75
9
STORY 23
251.04
153.65
53.59
199.23
10
STORY 22
237.04
144.92
49.67
187.71
11
STORY 21
223.00
136.22
45.85
176.24
12
STORY 20
208.92
127.52
42.12
164.79
13
STORY 19
194.86
118.84
38.49
153.39
Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013. ©IJAET ISSN: 22311963 14
STORY 18
180.86
110.21
34.98
142.08
15
STORY 17
166.92
101.63
31.60
130.87
16
STORY 16
153.12
93.18
28.35
119.84
17
STORY 15
139.44
84.83
25.21
108.96
18
STORY 14
125.95
76.63
22.22
98.28
19
STORY 13
112.73
68.59
19.38
87.84
20
STORY 12
99.85
60.77
16.73
77.70
21
STORY 11
87.40
53.20
14.27
67.92
22
STORY 10
75.48
45.92
12.00
58.56
23
STORY 9
64.23
39.04
9.92
49.73
24
STORY 8
53.50
32.55
8.00
41.40
25
STORY 7
43.60
26.60
6.24
33.75
26
STORY 6
34.61
21.22
4.69
26.84
27
STORY 5
26.44
16.33
3.36
20.59
28
STORY 4
19.20
11.98
2.25
15.04
29
STORY 3
12.82
8.15
1.38
10.18
30
STORY 2
6.16
4.15
0.58
5.11
31
STORY 1
1.86
1.40
0.16
1.67
Graph 1 Displacement for (Model A1, B1, C1, D1)
VI.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
6.1. As per IS 456-2000 CL : 20.5 page no 33 maximum top deflection of building due to wind should not exceed H/500, where H is total height of building in mm, Means in our case 93240/500 is equal to 186.48mm. For earth quake As per IS 1893-1-2002CL :7.11.1 page no 27, The story drift in any story due to minimum specified design lateral force, with partial load factor of 1.0 shall not exceed 0.004 times story height. For deflection 0.4 percentage of height of story it means H/250, where H is height of story. In our case 3048/250 is equal to 12.192mm. Because of book of “Analysis and Design of tall building “by Bryan Stafford Smith and Alex Coull, maximum top deflection of 100m height or 33 story building is 100 mm to 500 mm (6 inch to 20 inch), or, alternatively width of
1852
Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013. ©IJAET ISSN: 22311963 building 10.98 m which is too small compare to length of building 44.16 m in our case, so that wind case more governing/severe than the earth quake case. 6.2 As per, a relative deflection of 3 to 15 mm (0.12 to 0.6 inch) over a story height of 3 m (10 ft). For Model A1, B1, C1, D1. As per table 1 and Graph 1 of Top deflection, top deflection observed for wind combinationDCON6 (1.5 DL + 1.5 WL) for each models A1, B1, C1 and D1. In without shear wall model A1 top deflection is 360.52 mm which is reduce up to 40% in top deflection due to shear wall at centre of building plan and side centre shear wall but drastically (suddenly) reduction up to 75% in top deflection by using corner shear wall. At this stage we observed an effect of position of shear wall on top deflection of a building.
VII.
CONCLUSION
As per discussion of results we conclude that there is marginal reduction in deflection, by introducing side centre shear wall, shear wall at centre. But the deflection is reduced drastically by introducing shear wall at corner along both directions. Width of building is too small compare to length of building in plan in present work therefore wind case is governing case in our building.
VIII.
FUTURE SCOPE Study of all the system without infill walls and its effect. Study of coupled shear wall. Study of different parameters like thickness, height and tapered section for shear wall. Study of foundation for various systems
IX.
CASE STUDY
“GIFT CITY”, A 30 story building, near Gift City circle, Gandhinagar (zone - 4), Gujarat, India.
REFERENCES [1] Bryan Stafford Smith and Alex Coull “Analysis and Design of tall building ”, A wiley-interscience publication, NEW YORK. [2] IS 456:2000, “Indian Standard plain and reinforced concrete-Code of Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000. [3] IS: 875 (Part 1), “Indian Standard Code of Practice for design loads for building and structures, Dead Loads” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. [4] IS: 875 (Part 2), “Indian Standard Code of Practice for design loads for building and structures, Live Loads” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. [5] IS: 875 (Part 3), “Indian Standard Code of Practice for design loads (Other than earthquake) for building and structures, Wind Loads” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. [6] David Scott & David Farnsworth “The effects of complex geometry on tall towers”new york, usa [7] R. K. L. Su1, A. M. Chandler1, M. N. Sheikh1 and N. T. K. Lam2“Influence of non-structural components on lateral stiffness of tall buildings”1 department of civil engineering, university of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 2 department of civil and environmental engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. [8] S. Lee, S. Tovar, A. Kareem “Shape and topology sculpting of tall buildings under aerodynamic loads” department of civil engineeringand geological sciences,University of Notre dame. [9] MisamAbidi, MangulkarMadhuri. N. “Review on shear wall for soft story high-rise buildings” International journal of engineering and advanced technology [10]Wenjuan Lou, Mingfenghuang, hujin, guohuishenand C. M. Chan“Three-dimensional wind load effects and wind-induced dynamic responses of a tall building with x-shape”
AUTHORS V. R. Patel is currently assistant professor in applied mechanics department at faculty of technology and engineering, M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara. He obtained his B.E. civil, M.E. structure and Ph.D. from M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat.
1853
Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013. ŠIJAET ISSN: 22311963 R. J. Prajapati is currently M.E. Research Scholar in Applied Mechanics Department at Faculty of Technology and Engineering, M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara. He obtained his B.E. Civil degree from B.V.M. College, S.P. University, V.V. Nagar, Anand and M.E. Civil (structural Engineering) degree from M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat.
1854
Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854