Static Analysis of GFRG and Conventional Multistoried Buildings using ETABS

IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 2 | Issue 12 | June 2016 ISSN (online): 2349-784X

Static Analysis of GFRG and Conventional Multistoried Buildings using ETABS Athulya R Prasad PG Student Department of Civil Engineering Sree Buddha College of engineering, Pattoor Alappuzha, Kerala, India

Namitha Chandran Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering Sree Buddha College of engineering, Pattoor Alappuzha, Kerala, India

Abstract Glass fiber reinforced Gypsum (GFRG) panel is a new building panel product, where there is a tremendous need for costeffective mass-scale affordable housing. GFRG panel otherwise called Rapidwall, is a vitality effective green building material with gigantic potential for use as load bearing and non-load bearing wall panels. They are load bearing panels with cavities suitable for both external and internal walls. It can likewise be used as intermediate floor slab/roof slab in combination with RCC as a composite material. They are not only eco-friendly, but also resistant to termites, heat, rot, corrosion, water and fire. Concrete infill with vertical reinforcement rods enhances its vertical and lateral load capabilities. Comparative studies of GFRG and conventional buildings have been carried out in the present investigation. Rapidwall panel provides speedier construction and leads to environmental protection. Subsequently, it is a perfect option building material to replace bricks or concrete blocks. This paper focuses on equivalent static analysis of G+7 storied, GFRG and conventional buildings to evaluate the story displacement, story drift and base shear. Keywords: Gypsum panel, Rapidwall, Tie beam, Story displacement, Drift ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I.

INTRODUCTION

Glass fiber reinforced Gypsum (GFRG) panel also known as Rapidwall is a building panel product, made of calcined gypsum plaster, reinforced with glass fibers, used for building construction, was originally developed and used since 1990 in Australia. GFRG panels are made to a length of 12m, height of 3m and thickness of 124mm. The cavities of panels might be unfilled, somewhat partially filled or fully filled with reinforced concrete according to structural requirement. Test studies and research in various countries have exhibited that GFRG panels, suitably filled with plain reinforced concrete has considerable quality to act as load bearing elements as well as shear wall, capable of resisting lateral loads due to earthquake and wind. GFRG panel can likewise be utilized beneficially as in-fills in combination with RCC framed columns and beams with no limitation on number of stories. Micro-beams and RCC screed can be used as floor/ roof slab. A typical cross section of the panel is shown in the Figure 1.

Fig. 1: a) GFRG panel

b) Cross section details

(c) GFRG builing

Use of reprocessed/recycled industrial byproduct (waste gypsum) to manufacture GFRG panel, helps to abate pollution and protect the environment. It is also suitable for load bearing applications as well as hybrid construction in multi storey buildings. There will be increased speed of construction with less man power, saving of cement, steel, river sand; burnt clay bricks/concrete blocks.

563

Static Analysis of GFRG and Conventional Multistoried Buildings using ETABS (IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 12 / 101)

II. PROBLEM DEFINITION A typical plan for a proposed building at RCF, Mumbai is considered for the analysis. Both GFRG and conventional building is having a same height of 24m. In the case of conventional buildings, floor and roof slabs are RCC slabs of 200mm thickness using M20 grade concrete. Wall thickness is taken as 250mm. Beams of size 250mm x 300mm and columns of size 450mm x 450mm with a yield strength of steel of Fe 415. Zone –III, Zone factor, Z (Table2 of IS 1893-2002) – 0.16, Importance factor, I (Table 6 of IS 1893-2002) – 1.0, Response reduction factor, R (Table 7 of IS 1893-2002)- 3.00, Soil type (figure 2 of IS 18932002) – Type II (Medium soil). In the case of GFRG building, there will not be any beams and columns. All the roof/floor slabs and wall panels are 124mm thick. The gravity loads acting on the slabs includes 2 kN/m 2 live load and 1 kN/m2 floor finish. The bottom support are assumed to be hinged. Static and dynamic analysis of both G+7 storied buildings is carried out. The main objective of the study is to carry out the comparison of GFRG and conventional buildings. The plan layout for all the building models is kept as same. Study has been done on different models of a G+7 storey building, using ETABS software. Following are the models considered for analysis in ETABS 2015, using equivalent static analysis. The plan and layout of conventional and GFRG building are illustrated in Figure 2 and 3.

Fig. 2: Plan and 3D view of conventional building

Fig. 3: Plan and 3D view of GFRG building

Various load combinations considered for the analysis process are:  1.5DL  1.5(DL + LL)  1.5(DL ± EQ)  1.2(DL + LL ± EQ)

564

Static Analysis of GFRG and Conventional Multistoried Buildings using ETABS (IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 12 / 101)

   

0.9DL ± 1.5EQ 1.5(DL ± WL) 1.2(DL + LL ± WL) 0.9DL ± 1.5WL III. ANALYSIS OF MODELS

The described 3D building model is analyzed using equivalent static method. Distinctive parameters like story deflection, story drift and base shear are considered for the models. Dead load and live load are considered according to IS-875(part 1 &2), wind load is considered according to IS-875(part 3) and earthquake loading is considered according to IS: 1893 (Part1)-2002. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS In this paper, comparison of analysis results for GFRG and conventional building in terms of story displacement, story drift and story shear are presented and compared to understand the structural performance. Static analysis for critical load case (1.5DL+1.5EQX) are performed in X and Y direction for all the models using ETABS Software.  Maximum permissible displacement and permissible story drift are calculated from IS: 1893-2002 and IS: 456-2000.  Maximum permissible displacement is limited to H/500, where H - Total height of building.  For H=12m, permissible story displacement = 24mm.  Maximum permissible story drift is limited to 0.004h, where h – story height.  For h=3m, permissible story drift = 12mm. 1) Story displacement: Figure 4 shows story displacement for GFRG and conventional G+7 storied buildings due to critical load.

Fig. 4: Story displacement due to critical load

2) Story drift: Figure 5 shows story drift for GFRG and conventional G+7 storied buildings due to critical load.

Fig. 5: Story drifts due to critical load

565

Static Analysis of GFRG and Conventional Multistoried Buildings using ETABS (IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 12 / 101)

3) Base shear: Figure 6 shows base shear for GFRG and conventional G+7 storied buildings due to critical load.

Fig. 6: Base shear due to critical load

V. CONCLUSIONS 1) From the analysis results for GFRG and conventional buildings indicate that, GFRG building perform better in terms of least story displacement, story drift and base shear when compared to conventional buildings. 2) Among all load combinations, combination of 1.5DL+1.5EQX is observed to be more critical combination for all the models. 3) The story displacement and story drift for both GFRG and conventional buildings are within the permissible limits. 4) Critical displacement for conventional building is 39.5mm and for GFRG building is 1.2mm, which is less than permissible limits. 5) Static analysis is not sufficient for high rise buildings and it’s necessary to do dynamic analysis. REFERENCES Maganti Janardhana, A. Meher Prasad, Devdas Menon, “Studies On the behaviour of Glass Fiber Reinforced Gypsum Wall Panels”, Structural engineering division, IIT Madras [2] GFRG/RAPIDWALL Building Structural Design Manual, prepared by Structural Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras, 2012. [3] Deepak M Jirage, V.G. Sayagavi, N.G. Gore, “Comparative Study of RCC and Composite Multi-storied Building”, International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Applied Science , Volume 1, Issue 6, September 2015 [4] Bahador Bagheri, Ehsan Salimi Firoozabad, Mohammadreza Yahyaei, “Comparative Study of the Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multi-Storey Irregular Building”, International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 11, May 2012 [5] Mohammed Rizwan Sultan, D. Gouse Peer, “Dynamic analysis of multi-storey building for different shapes” International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering, Issue 8, Volume 2, August 2015 [6] Arvind reddy, R. J. Fernandes, “Seismic analysis of RC regular and irregular frame structures” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume. 02, Issue 05, Aug 2015 [7] Ashok Thakur, Arvinder Singh, “Comparative Analysis of a Multistoried Residential Building with and without Shear Wall using STADD Pro” International Journal of Recent Research Aspects, Vol. 1, Issue 1, June 2014 [8] IS 1893:2002 (Part I), Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. [9] IS 875:1987(Part 2), Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings and structures- Imposed Loads, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi [10] IS 875:1987(Part 3), Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings and structures- Wind Loads, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi [1]

566

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook

Static Analysis of GFRG and Conventional Multistoried Buildings using ETABS

Published on Oct 7, 2016

IJSTE

Glass fiber reinforced Gypsum (GFRG) panel is a new building panel product, where there is a tremendous need for cost-effective mass-scale affordable housing. GFRG panel otherwise called Rapidwall, is a vitality effective green building material with gigantic potential for use as load bearing and non-load bearing wall panels. They are load bearing panels with cavities suitable for both external and internal walls. It can likewise be used as intermediate floor slab/roof slab in combination with RCC as a composite material. They are not only eco-friendly, but also resistant to termites, heat, rot, corrosion, water and fire. Concrete infill with vertical reinforcement rods enhances its vertical and lateral load capabilities. Comparative studies of GFRG and conventional buildings have been carried out in the present investigation. Rapidwall panel provides speedier construction and leads to environmental protection.