2KL12CSE08WORLD

Acknowledgement
The satisfaction that accompanies the successful completion of any task would
be incomplete without the mention of the people who make it possible whose
constant guidance and encouragement crown all the e orts with success.
First and foremost I would like to place on record my heartiest gratitude to my

guide Prof. S. S. Charantimath for having taken me under his guidance. He
continuously helped with his invaluable suggestions and excellent guidance.
I am thankful to co-guide Prof. Swapnil B. Cholekar Department of Civil Engi-

neering, for his valuable guidance, kind co-operation and encouragement
throughout the dissertation work.
I am grateful to Dr. R. V. Raikar , Head, Department of Civil Engineering for his

valuable suggestions during the synopsis meeting and for the unyielding support
over the year.
I am expressing my gratitude to P G Coordinator Dr. V. D. Gundakalle, faculty

in Civil engineering department, for his sincere help.
I express out deep gratitude to my renowned institute, K.L.E Society's Dr. M.

S. Sheshgiri College of Engineering and Technology, Belgaum. Which provided
me an opportunity and platform for ful lling my dreams, and desire to reach my
goal. I sincerely thank my respected principal Dr. B. G. Katageri , who is the
constant source of inspiration, throughout the academics.
I am grateful to my parents who have been great support throughout the develop-
ment of my project. Last but not the least I would like to extend my thanks to the
teaching and non teaching sta of our department, friends and well wishers for their
timely help either directly or indirectly for the completion of my project.
Manjunath Birje
i
Abstract
Steel-concrete composite construction has gained wide acceptance world wide as

an alternative to pure steel and pure concrete construction. However, this approach
is a relatively new concept for the construction industry. Steel-concrete composite
elements are used extensively in modern buildings. Extensive research on
composite column, composite beam and deck slab in which structural steel section
are encased in concrete have been carried out. Steel-concrete composite
construction means the concrete slab is connected to the steel beam with the help of
shear connectors so that they act as a single component.
Steel-concrete composite construction technique is an e cient, economical and

innovative method for seismic resistance of multistoried buildings. This report
rep-resents a comparative study on structural parameter of 10 storey, 20 storey
and 30 storey building of RCC and composite building. For modeling of
composite and RCC structures ETABS 2013 software is used. The dead load and
live load are considered as per IS-875(part 1 & 2).The building is situated in
earthquake zone III and for earthquake loading, the provisions of IS: 1893(Part1)-
2002 is considered. Equivalent static method and dynamic analysis is used.
Reinforced concrete members are used in the framing system for most of the build-
ings since this is the most suitable & economic system for low-rise buildings. However,
for medium to high-rise buildings this type of structure is no longer economic because of
increased dead load, less sti ness, span restriction and hazardous formwork. Steel-
concrete composite frame system can provide an e ective and economic solution to most
of these problems in medium to high-rise buildings.
The results of this work shows that the maximum shear force and maximum bend-ing
moment are less in composite beam as compared to RCC beam. The node dis-
placement is on higher side in composite structure as compared to RCC structure. The
weight of composite structure is also less compared to RCC structure. Composite
structures are the best solution for high rise structure as compared to RCC structure.
ii
Contents
Acknowledgement i
Abstract ii
Contents iii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables ix
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Objectives Of The Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Scope Of The Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Organization Of Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 LITERATURE SURVEY 6
2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3 COMPOSITE STRUCTURES 10
3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Need Of Steel - Concrete Composite Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3 Composite Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4 Behavior Of Composite Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5 Composite Action Between Steel And Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6 Composite Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.7 Structural Elements Of Pro led Slab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.8 Shear Connectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.9 Types Of Shear Connectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
iii
CONTENTS CONTENTS
3.10 e ect of shear connection on bending and shear stresses . . . . . . . . 20

3.11 Reinforcement For Shrinkage And Temperature Stresses . . . . . . . . 20
3.12 Composite Beam Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.13 Composite Slab Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.14 Ultimate Load Behavior Of Composite Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.15 Bending Resistance Of Composite Slab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.16 Shear Resistance Of Composite Slab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.17 Pro led Steel Sheeting As Shuttering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.18 Loads On Pro led Sheeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.19 Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.20 Design Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.21 Steel-concrete Composite Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.22 Resistance Of Cross-section To Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4 METHODOLOGIES 31
4.1 Structural Con guration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Softwares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Determination Of Design Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.4 Specifying The Analysis Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5 MODELING AND ANALYSIS 34

5.1 Model Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2 ETABS 2013 Procedure For Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.3 Building Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4 RCC Structure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.5 Type Materials Used In Modeling Of Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.6 Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.7 Composite Structure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.8 Load Combinations For Composite Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.9 Type Of Materials Used In Modeling Of Composite Structure . . . . 40
5.10 Equivalent Static Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.11 Response Spectrum Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.12 Load Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.13 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 46
6.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.2 Base shear for RCC and composite building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
iv
CONTENTS CONTENTS
6.3 Lateral load for RCC and composite building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

6.4 Nodal displacement for RCC and composite building . . . . . . . . . 59
6.5 Lateral load for RCC and composite building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.6 Natural period for RCC and composite structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.7 Weight of RCC and composite structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.8 Axial forces for Composite and RCC structures . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.9 Bending moments for Composite and RCC structures . . . . . . . . . 76
6.10 Shear force for Composite and RCC structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.11 Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 83

7.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7.2 ABOUT PRESENT STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7.3 Scope For Future Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Bibliography 85
APPENDIX A 87
v
List of Figures
3.1 Typical Composite Beam Slab arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.2 Typical Composite Beam Slab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Behavior of Composite and Non Composite Beam . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4 Composite action between steel and concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5 Typical Composite Floor Slab Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6 Types of pro led sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.7 Types of pro led deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
[12]
3.8 headed stud Shear Connector ..................... 18
3.9 Types of Shear Connectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.10 Resistance to sagging bending of composite section for full interaction 22
3.11 Typical cross-sections of fully and partially concrete encased columns 25
3.12 Typical cross-sections of concrete lled tubular sections . . . . . . . . 25
3.13 Typical steel concrete composite columns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.14 Stress distribution of the plastic resistance to compression of an encased
I section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1 Typical Plan of RCC Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5.2 RCC Structure Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.3 RCC Structure 3D Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4 Storey response plots from Etab 2013 software . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.5 Bending Moment Diagram for RCC Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.6 Typical Plan of Composite Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.7 Response spectra for rock and soil sites for 5 percent damping . . . . 45
6.1 Comparison of Base shear Vs. Storey No. For X- Direction [10 storey
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
vi
LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES
6.4 Comparison of Base shear Vs. Storey No. For Y- Direction [10 storey
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.7 Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For X- Di-
rection [10 storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.8 : Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For X-
Direction [20 storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.10 Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For Y- Di-
6.13 Comparison of Storey no Vs. Displacement (mm) For X- Direction [10
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.16 Comparison of Storey no Vs. Displacement (mm) For Y- Direction [10
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.19 Comparison of Storey no Vs. Lateral load (kN) For X- Direction [10
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.22 Comparison of Storey no Vs. Lateral load (kN) For Y- Direction [10
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
vii
LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.25 Comparison of Time period (sec) Vs. Storey no For RCC and Composite 71
6.26 Comparison of Time period (sec) Vs. Storey no For X-Direction [Ap-
proximate ,RCC and Composite] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.28 Comparison of Total weight (kN) Vs. Model For RCC and Composite. 73
6.29 Comparison of Axial Force (kN) Vs. Model For Corner column . . . . 74
6.30 Comparison of Axial Force (kN) Vs. Model For Exterior Column . . . 75
6.32 Comparison of Bending moment(kN-m) Vs. Model for X-Direction . . 76
6.33 Comparison of Bending moment(kN-m) Vs. Model for Y-Direction . . 76
6.34 Comparison of Shear force (kN) Vs. Model For X- Direction . . . . . 77
6.35 Comparison of Shear force (kN) Vs. Model For Y- Direction . . . . . 77
7.1 The frame geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

7.2 Etab 13 Base Shear output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
viii
List of Tables
[16]
3.1 Span to Depth ratio as according to EC4 .............. 13
3.2 Moment capacity of composite section with full shear interaction (ac-
[12]
cording to IS :11384 -1985) ...................... 20
3.3 Properties of concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.1 Data For Analysis of RCC Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.2 Beam Size for RCC building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.3 Column Size for RCC building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4 Data For Analysis of Composite Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.5 Beam size for composite Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.6 Column Size for Composite structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.7 Load combination for RCC structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.8 Load pattern on RCC and Composite structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.1 Comparison of Base shear Vs. Storey No. For X- Direction[10 storey
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.4 Comparison of Base shear Vs. Storey No. For Y- Direction[10 storey
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
ix
LIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
storey model] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.25 Comparison of Time period (sec) Vs. Storey no For RCC and Composite 71
6.27 Comparison of Time period (sec) Vs. Storey no For Y-Direction [Ap-
6.28 Comparison of Total weight (kN) Vs. Model For RCC and Composite. 73
x
LIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES
6.29 Comparison of Axial Force (kN) Vs. Model For Corner column . . . . 74
6.31 Comparison of Axial Force (kN) Vs. Model For Interior Column . . . 75
6.32 Comparison of Bending moment(kN-m) Vs. Model . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.33 Comparison of Shear force(kN) Vs. Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND NOTATIONS
Ah Design horizontal seismic coe cient

d Base dimension of the building, in meters, in the direction in which the
Seismic force is considered
EQX Earthquake load in X-direction
EQY Earthquake load in Y-direction
hi Height of oor i measured from the base
I Importance factor
th
Qi Design lateral force at i oor
R Response reduction factor
RSX Earthquake spectrum in the X-direction
RSY Earthquake spectrum in the Y-direction
Sa/g Average response acceleration coe cient for rock or soil sites, based on
appropriate natural periods and damping of the structure
T Undamped natural period of vibration of the structure (in second)
Ta Approximate fundamental natural period (in second)
vB Design seismic base shear calculated using approximate fundamental period
Ta
VB Design seismic base shear for response spectrum analysis
W Seismic weight of the structure
ZZone factor
ESA Equivalent Static Analysis
RSA Response Spectrum Analysis
Aa Area of steel section
As Cross sectional area of steel beam of a composite section
Bf Width of top angle of steel section
Beff E ective width of concrete slab
Fck Characteristic compressive strength of concrete
Fy Yield strength of steel
Mp Plastic moment of resistance of a cross section
Mu Ultimate bending moment
xii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
With rapid growth in population along with the development of industrial and
commercial activities rapid urbanization has taken place which has resulted into
con-tinuous in ux of rural people to metro cities in India. So obviously the
horizontal space constraint is reaching an alarming situation for metros. To cope
with the situa-tion maximum utilization of space vertically calls for the
construction of multistoried buildings in large numbers but the question of a
ordability of the target customers mainly the middle income group of our country
necessitates e cient and cost e ective design of such buildings.
In today's modern era of innovation, two materials widely and inevitably used as
construction material are steel and concrete for structures ranging from buildings to
bridges. Though these materials may have di erent properties and characteristics, they
both seem to complement each other in many ways. Steel has excellent resistance to
tensile loading but lesser weight ratio so thin sections are used which may be prone to
buckling phenomenon. On the other hand concrete is good in resistance to compressive
force. Steel may be used to induce ductility an important criteria for tall building, while
corrosion protection and thermal insulation can be done by concrete. Similarly buckling
of steel can also be restrained by concrete. In order, to derive the optimum bene ts from
both materials composite construction is widely preferred.
Due to increased in demand and scarcity in supply with respect to the a ord-able
housing projects in India, builders are continuously looking for some alternative
technology which may increase their pro t margin i.e. return on investment. It has
been reported that buildings with purely steel structures are economic only when the
overall form of the building is regular and it is possible to use bracings at least along
1
Comparative Study On Structural Parameter Of RCC And Composite Building
the longer direction without hampering the aesthetics of the building. Therefore it
is important to examine the behavior of the steel concrete composite option which
is faster method of construction for structures having irregular shape and
variation and height, cladding and oor area.
The use of Steel in construction industry is very low in India compared to many
developing countries. Experiences of other countries indicate that this is not due to
the lack of economy of steel as a construction material. There is a great potential for
increasing the volume of steel in construction, especially in the current development
needs in India. Not exploring steel as an alternative construction material and not
using it where it is economical is a heavy loss for the country. Also, it is evident that
now-a-days, the composite sections using Steel encased with Concrete are
economic, cost and time e ective solution in major civil structures such as bridges
and high rise buildings. In due consideration of the above fact, this dissertation work
has been envisaged which consists of analysis and design of a high rise building
using Steel-Concrete composites. The project also involves analysis and design of
an equivalent R.C.C structure so that a parameters like time period, displacement,
base shear and lateral force, static and dynamic analysis is carried out between a
Steel-Concrete composite structure and an equivalent R.C.C. structure.
Steel-concrete composite system has several advantages over conventional rein-

forced concrete or steel structures: these include high strength-to-weight ratios,
struc-tural integrity, durable nishes, dimensional stability and sound absorption.
These advantages have led to a substantial increase in the use of composite
construction all over the world in recent years. Due to increased land price and
population growth medium to high-rise structures are gaining popularity and
approvals from Govern-ment. In India reinforced concrete members are mostly used
in the framing system for most of the buildings since this is the most convenient &
economic system for low-rise buildings. However, for medium to high-rise buildings
this type of structure is no longer economic because of increased dead load, less sti
ness, span restriction and hazardous formwork. Steel-concrete composite frame
system can provide an e ective and economic solution to most of these problems in
medium to high-rise buildings. An attempt has been made in this study to explore the
feasibility of composite con-struction in India for medium to high-rise buildings.
In conventional composite construction, concrete slabs rest over steel beams and
are supported by them. Under load these two components act independently and a
relative slip occurs at the interface if there is no connection between them. With the
help of a deliberate and appropriate connection provided between the beam and the
concrete slab, the slip between them can be eliminated. In this case the steel
M .Tech(Structural Engineering)Dissertation 2014 2

Department of Civil Engineering, KLE Dr.M.S.S.CET, Belgaum.
beam and the slab act as a \composite beam" and their action is similar to that of
a monolithic Tee beam. Concrete is stronger in compression than in tension, and
steel is susceptible to buckling in compression. By the composite action between
the two, we can utilize their respective advantages to the fullest extent.
There are many advantages associated with steel-concrete composite construction.

Some of these are listed below:
The most e ective utilization of steel and concrete is achieved.
Keeping the span and loading unaltered; a more economical steel section (in
terms of depth and weight) is adequate in composite construction compared
with conventional non-composite construction.
As the depth of beam reduces, the construction depth reduces, resulting in

en-hanced headroom.
Because of its larger sti ness, composite beams have less de ection than
steel beams.
Composite construction provides e cient arrangement to cover large column

free space.
Composite construction is amenable to \fast-track" construction because of using

rolled steel and prefabricated components, rather than cast-in-situ concrete.
Encased steel beam sections have improved re resistance and corrosion.
1.2 Objectives Of The Study
Steel-concrete composite systems have become quite popular in recent times

be-cause of their advantages against conventional construction. Composite
construction combines the better properties of the both i.e. concrete in
compression and steel in tension, they have almost the same thermal expansion
and results in speedy construc-tion.
Generation of RCC and composite 3D building models of di erent height 10

storey, 20 storey and 30 storey
To x the preliminary dimension of component.
To evaluate these building models under static and dynamic analysis that are
designed for di erent load combinations as given in IS 1893(Part 1):2002 code.

Comparative study of structural parameters like base shear, natural period

and displacement, axial forces, of the RCC and composite buildings
To study the code requirements.
Identify the performance of the structure.
1.3 Methodology
Modeling of RCC and composite frames are considered.
Equivalent static method and dynamic analysis is used for models using
ETABS 2013 software.
Output of software results are used for comparative study.
Comparative study involves base shear, mode shape, natural period,

seismic forces and behavior of the building under seismic condition.
After nding all structural parameter the best solution for high rise structure is
decided.
1.4 Scope Of The Study
The present report is an attempt to study the state of art of seismic performance
evaluation of RCC and composite building. In the present work, an analytical study
on the structural behavior of RCC and composite high rise buildings is under taken.
The parameters considered are displacements, axial forces, base shear and natural
period. The 3D analysis has been carried out using structural analysis software
ETABS 2013 and the results such as maximum values of displacements, axial
forces, base shear and natural periods are found out by analysis.
The scope of the study is as follows:
Understanding the composite structure behavior.
Understanding the composite Beam model, RCC beam model, RCC column
and composite column model and slab and deck slab model.
Understanding the design of composite beam, RCC beam and RCC column,
composite column.
Analyzing the 3D model of RCC and composite structure by ETABS 2013

soft-ware.

1.5 Organization Of Dissertation
The dissertation is separated in seven chapters, which are brie y explained below:
Chapter one covers the general background and the general statement of the
prob-lem, objective of the study and scope of the work.
Chapter two presents Literature Review. This chapter describes in detail the
vari-ous types of works carried out by the researchers to understand the
comparative study of composite and rcc structures.
Chapter three entitled Composite structures present composite structure
behavior and composite construction.
Chapter four entitled Methodologies.This chapter describes the method of
analysis and software work related to comparative study.
Chapter ve entitled Modeling and Analysis present the modeling and analysis
of composite and rcc structure in ETABS 2013 and interpretation of results.
Chapter six presents the Results and Discussions presents results obtained
from analysis. This chapter also presents the results in the form of graphs and
tables and gives a discussion on the results obtained.
Chapter seven presents the Conclusion drawn from the study and scope for
further study. Lastly, References, Appendix and Outcome of dissertation are given.

Chapter 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 General
A state of the art literature review is carried out as part of the present study.
This chapter presents a brief summary of the literature review on comparative
study of RCC and composite building.
Steel-concrete composite systems have become quite popular in recent times be-
cause of their advantages against conventional construction. Composite construction
combines the better properties of the both i.e. concrete in compression and steel in
tension, they have almost the same thermal expansion and results in speedy
construc-tion. Lot of research has been done by various eminent personalities and
researchers across the world on the chosen topic and some of them are listed below.
2.2 Review
[1]
D. R. Panchal et al., Comparative Study of R.C.C, Steel and Composite (G+30
Storey) Building. In the paper, steel concrete composite, steel and R.C.C. options are
considered for comparative study of G+30 storey commercial building which is
situated in earthquake zone IV. Equivalent Static Method of Analysis is used. For
modeling of Composite, Steel and R.C.C. structures, ETABS 9.7.2 software is used
and the results are compared; and it is found that composite structure is found to be
more economical. Steel-concrete composite systems have become quite popular in
recent times because of their advantages against conventional construction. In the
comparative study includes de ections of the members, size and material
consumption of members in composite with respect to R.C.C. and Steel sections. As
the results show the Steel option is better than R.C.C. But the Composite option for
high rise building is best suited among all three options.
6
[2]
Anish N. Shah et al., Comparison Of R.C.C. and Composite Multistoried
Buildings. In this paper, steel-concrete composite with R.C.C. options are
considered for comparative study of G+15 storey o ce building which is situated
in earthquake zone IV & wind speed 39m/s. Equivalent Static Method of Analysis
is used. For modeling of Composite & R.C.C. structures, STAAD-Pro software is
used and the results are compared; and it is found that composite structure are
more economical. The de ection & storey drift in composite structure is nearly
double than that of R.C.C. Structure but the de ection is within the permissible
limit. Axial Force & Shear force in R.C.C. structure is on higher side than that of
composite structure. Max bending moment in beams of composite structure is
slightly on higher side in some storey's than R.C.C. Structure.
[3]
P. Kmiecik et al., Modeling of reinforced concrete structures and composite
structures with concrete strength degradation taken into consideration. In this paper,
Because of the properties of the material (concrete), computer simulations in the eld
of reinforced concrete structures are pose a challenge. As opposed to steel, concrete
when subjected to compression exhibits non linearity right from the start. Moreover, it
much quicker undergoes degradation under tension. All this poses di culties for
numerical analysis. Parameters needed to correctly model concrete under compound
stress are described in this paper. It is mainly intended for the analysis of reinforced
concrete structures and concrete-concrete and steel-concrete composite structures.
However, it is recommended that before an analysis of the structure one should test
the behavior of the material itself, e.g. by carrying out a numerical analysis of
cylindrical samples under compression, in order to compare it with the given stress-
strain relation. Because of the character of concrete failure, some quantities can be
rather assumed than determined in laboratory tests. Therefore the assumptions
should be veri ed by comparing other parameters, e.g. the de ection of the modeled
structural component. This means that the model parameters often need to be
calibrated several times in the course of the numerical analysis.
[4]
D. R. Panchal et al., Steel-Concrete Composite Building Under Seismic Forces.
In the paper, for evaluating the seismic performance of a typical B+G+9 multi-storey
building, steel-concrete composite and R.C.C. options are considered. Two popular
methods of seismic analysis i.e. Equivalent Static Method of Analysis and Linear
Dynamic Response Spectrum Method of Analysis are used. For modeling, the com-
posite and R.C.C. structures STAAD.Pro, V8i software is used and the results of the
analysis are compared; composite structure is found to be more. As the dead weight
of a composite structure is less compared to an R.C.C. structure, it is subjected to
less amount of forces induced due to the earthquake. In this paper clearly indicates

that the displacement of composite structural system is less compared to an R.C.C.

structural system so the time period required by the composite structure for one
cycle is also less and the frequency of structure is higher. In case of a composite
structural system, because of the lesser magnitude of the beam end forces and
moments com-pared to an RCC system. One can use lighter sections in a composite
structure. Thus, it reduces the self-weight and cost of the structural components.
[5]
Waldemar St et al., Numerical analysis of steel-reinforced concrete composite
girders. The paper presents a numerical model of a typical composite girder which
consists of a strip of a reinforced concrete slab resting on a steel beam. Compati-
bility of horizontal displacements is assumed in the slab-beam contact region. The
structure is subjected to unidirectional bending. The cross-section is divided into lay-
ers, either steel or concrete, and then analyzed by applying non-linear characteristics
of materials. The problem is solved by employing the nite element method. The
presented results of the exemplary calculations of the composite beam demonstrate
a considerable conformance with the experimental results. The cracking of concrete
and yielding of steel layers that take place in subsequent stages of loading, cause
redis-tribution of bending moments which is a known phenomenon. Since the scope
of the redistribution depends on individual geometric and material features of the
analyzed structures, it is di cult to formulate general conclusions. It seems more
advisable to propose suitable software for engineer calculation.
[6]
Mahbuba Begum et al., Cost analysis of steel concrete composite structures in
Bangladesh. Steel-concrete composite frame system can provide an e ective and
economic solution to most of these problems in medium to high-rise buildings. For
low rise buildings RCC frame system is cheaper than composite system. However,
for buildings with number of stories greater than 15, composite construction becomes
economic than RCC construction. The number storey for each building type was
varied to identify the e ect on cost of these two di erent types of construction for low,
medium and high rise buildings. This paper shows that RCC construction is better for
low rise buildings (below 15 stories). For high rise buildings constructed with
composite frames cost decreases due to the use of smaller cross sectional element,
use of less steel, use of less formwork for concrete, low labor cost etc.
[7]
Sandeep Chaudhary et al., Hybrid Procedure for Cracking and Time-Dependent E
ects in Composite Frames at Service Load. A hybrid analytical-numerical proce-dure has
been presented to take into account the e ect of concrete cracking and time dependent e
ects of creep and shrinkage in composite beams of the composite frames subjected to
service load. The procedure is analytical at the element level and nu-merical at the
structural level. The results obtained from the proposed procedure, in

the limiting case, are shown to be in reasonable agreement with the experimental
and analytical results. Results are also compared with nite element analysis and
again reasonable agreement is shown. Use of the proposed procedure, for the
instantaneous and time-dependent analysis of large composite structures, e.g.,
tall composite build-ing frames, can save a considerable amount of computational
time as the proposed procedure requires a computational e ort, that is a small
fraction of that required in the nite element method.
2.3 Summary
In this chapter, research work carried out by various eminent personalities are
discussed. The literature reveals that, the Composite structures are more
economical compare to RCC structures especially for high rise buildings. Also the
de ection for RCC structure is less compared to Composite structures. In most of
the high rise buildings, composite structure is essential. Since it reduces weight
and oor height. Therefore, a thought has been given to compare the RCC and
composite multistoreyed residential buildings.

Chapter 3
COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
3.1 General
In the past, for the design of a building, the choice was normally between a
con-crete structure and a masonry structure. But the failure of many multistoried
and low-rise R.C.C. and masonry buildings due to earthquake has forced the
structural engineers to look for the alternative method of construction. Use of
composite or hybrid material is of particular interest, due to its signi cant potential
in improving the overall performance through rather modest changes in
manufacturing and con-structional technologies. In India, many consulting
engineers are reluctant to accept the use of composite steel-concrete structure
because of its unfamiliarity and com-plexity in its analysis and design. But
literature says that if properly con gured, then composite steel-concrete system
can provide extremely economical structural systems with high durability, rapid
erection and superior seismic performance characteristics. Steel and concrete
although very di erent in nature, these two materials complement one another:
Figure 3.1: Typical Composite Beam Slab arrangement
10
Concrete is e cient in compression and steel in tension.
Steel components are relatively thin and prone to buckling; concrete can
restrain these against buckling.
Concrete also gives protection against corrosion provides thermal insulation

at high temperatures.
Steel brings ductility into the structure.
Composite Steel-Concrete Structures are used widely in modern bridge and building
construction. A composite member is formed when a steel component, such as an I
beam, is attached to a concrete component, such as a oor slab or bridge deck. In such a
composite T-beam the comparatively high strength of the concrete in compression
complements the high strength of the steel in tension. The fact that each material is used
to the fullest advantage makes composite Steel-Concrete construction very e cient and
economical. However, the real attraction of such construction is based on having an e
cient connection of the Steel to the Concrete, and this connection that allows a transfer
of forces and gives composite members their unique behavior.
3.1.1 Composite Beam De nition
A steel-concrete composite beam consists of a steel beam, over which a reinforced

concrete slab is cast with shear connectors. The composite action reduces the beam
depth. Rolled steel sections themselves are found adequate frequently for buildings. The
composite beam can also be constructed with pro led sheeting with concrete topping or
[17]
with cast in place or precast reinforced concrete slab .
3.1.2 Composite Column De nition

A steel - concrete composite column is conventionally a compression member
in which the steel element is a structural steel section. There are three types of
compos-ite columns used in practice which are Concrete Encased, Concrete lled,
[17]
Battered Section .
3.2 Need Of Steel - Concrete Composite Section

Steel concrete composite construction combines the compressive strength of con-
crete with the tensile strength of steel to evolve an e ective and economic structural
system. Over The years, this specialized weld of construction has become more and
more popular in the western world and developed into a multifaceted design and
construction technique. Apart from composite beam, slab and column, options like

composite truss, slim- oor Etc is also being explored in the eld of composite con-
struction.
In building construction, role of composites is same as that of bones in a living
being. Steel-concrete composite is very advantageous because it:
O ers considerable exibility in design and is easy for fabrication.
Facilities faster construction scheduling of projects.
Enables easy construction scheduling even in congested sites.
Permits large span construction repair/modi cation.
Is an ideal material in earthquake prone locations due to high strength, sti

ness, ductility.
Steel framed composite construction is considered to be a cost e ective

solution for multistoried buildings due to optimum use of materials.
3.3 Composite Beam
The second element within the oor is the beams supporting the slabs and
carrying the loads to the columns. Depending on the grid of beams the slabs
therefore are spanning in one direction. Following the philosophy of mixed
structures those beams can be realized in steel, concrete, steel-concrete
composite or even other materials or their combination. In the following only
steel-concrete composite oor beams will be treated in detail.
In a composite beam within the sagging moment region the concrete slab is
ac-tivated in compression by shear connectors. Headed studs dominate in
practical application. The advantage is the combination of a relatively large sti
ness with a very large deformation capacity. Therefore, in contrast to block
dowels, headed studs can be arranged with constant spacing in between which
considerably facilitates the application. The disadvantage lies in the problems of
weld ability, especially when using galvanized plates or coated steel anges but
also regarding water in between the sheeting and the ange.
Figure 3.2: Typical Composite Beam Slab

3.3.1 Span To Depth Ratio
EC4 speci es the following span to depth (total beam and slab depth) ratios for
which the serviceability criteria will be deemed to be satis ed.
[16]
Table 3.1: Span to Depth ratio as according to EC4
EC4
15-18 (Primary Beam)
Simply Supported 18-20 (Secondary Beam)
Continuous 18-22 (Primary Beams)
22-25(End Bays)
3.4 Behavior Of Composite Beams
We consider only the case of structural steel sections and reinforced concrete
slabs. A comparison of behaviors is: The non-composite beam de ects further,
hence it is less sti . Note that the E-value hasn't changed so it is the I-value that
changes. In addition to the increase in sti ness there is also a large increase in
moment capacity leading to reduced section sizes. The metal decking can also
be used as permanent formwork, saving construction time.
Figure 3.3: Behavior of Composite and Non Composite Beam
3.5 Composite Action Between Steel And Concrete

Steel concrete composite construction utilities the compressive strength of concrete
with the tensile strength of steel so as to evolve an e ective and economic structural
system. Hence, these essentially di erent materials are completely compatible to each
other. The behavior of the composite system under transverse loading produces tensile
stresses at the bottom and compressive stress at the top. A T-beam has a ange in
compression and web in tension. This logically requires the slab to be made of concrete
and the beam made of steel. This ensures using the materials to their fullest potential; of
course one needs to make them behave together so that composite action is ensured

by providing appropriate shear connectors. In steel-concrete composite

[18]
construction, structural steelwork is typically used together with concrete .
Figure 3.4: Composite action between steel and concrete
3.6 Composite Floor
A steel concrete composite oor consists of a steel beam, over which a

reinforced concrete slab is cast with shear connectors, as explained in the
previous chapter. Since composite action reduces the beam depth, rolled steel
sections themselves are found adequate frequently (for buildings) and built-up
girders are generally unnecessary. The composite beam can also be constructed
with pro led sheeting with concrete topping, instead of cast-in place or precast
[1]
reinforced concrete slab. The pro led sheets are of two types
1. Trapezoidal pro le
2. Re-entrant pro le
Figure 3.5: Typical Composite Floor Slab Details
Formally the multistorey buildings in India were constructed with R.C.C framed
structure or Steel framed structure but recently the trend of going towards composite

structure has started and growing. In composite construction the two di erent
mate-rials are tied together by the use of shear studs at their interface having
lesser depth which saves the material cost considerably.
3.6.1 Advantage Of Composite Construction
1. Faster construction by utilizing rolled or per-fabricated components .Also,

speedy construction facilitates quicker return on the invested capital.
2. Quality of steel is assured since it is produced under controlled environment

in the factory. Large use of steel in composite construction compared to that
in RCC ensures better quality control for the major part of the structure.
3. Steel is more durable, highly recyclable and hence environment friendly.
4. Reduction in overall weight of structure compared to RCC construction is

pos-sible and thereby reducing the foundation cost.
5. Most e ective utilization of materials viz. concrete in compression and steel

in tension.
6. Steel component has the ability to absorb the energy released due to
seismic forces.
7. Ability to cover large column free area. This leads to more usable space.
Area occupied by the composite column is less than the area occupied by
the RCC column.
8. Cost e ectiveness based on life cycle cost analysis because steel structure can
be maintained easily and less frequent repairmen is required for steel structure.
9. Cost of formwork is lower compared to RCC construction.
10.Cost of handling and transportation is minimized because major part of the

structure is fabricated in the workshop.
3.7 Structural Elements Of Pro led Slab
Composite oors with pro led decking consist of the following structural
elements along with in-situ concrete and steel beams:
Pro led decking
Stud shear connectors
Reinforcement for shrinkage and temperature stresses

Stud shear connectors are invariably used in composite oors. Stud shear
connectors are welded through the sheeting on to the top ange of the beam.
Insulation require-ments for re usually control the slab thickness above the pro le.
Thickness values between 65 and 120mm are su cient to give a re rating of up to
2 hours. Lightweight concrete is generally preferred in composite oors due to
[18]
reduced weight on pro led sheets and enhanced re-insulation .
3.7.1 Pro led Sheet Decking
The steel deck is normally rolled into the desired pro le from 22G (0.70mm) to
16G (1.6mm) galvanized coil. It is pro led such that the pro le heights are usually
in the range of 40 { 60 mm whereas higher depth of 85mm is also available. The
typical trough width lies between 150 to 350mm. Generally, spans of the order of
2.5m to 3.5m between the beams are chosen and the beams are designed to
span between 6m to 12m. There are two well-Known generic types of pro les.
Trapezoidal pro le with web indentations
Dovetail pro le
Figure 3.6: Types of pro led sheet
Pro led deck shaped are chosen based on the ability to enhance the bond at
the steel-concrete concrete interface and providing stability while supporting wet
concrete and other construction loads. Indentations and protrusions into the rib
mobilize the bearing resistance in addition to adhesion and also provide the
shear transfer in composite slabs.
3.7.2 Pro led Sheeting As Permanent Formwork
The role and performance of pro led steel deck at various stages of composite
action is explained below. During construction stage, it acts as temporary formwork.
Also, it carries the weight of wet concrete, self-weight, workers and equipments. The

pro le deck must be strong enough to carry this load and sti enough to be
serviceable under the weight of wet concrete.
3.7.3 Pro led Deck
Composite oors using pro led sheet decking have become very popular in the
West for high-rise buildings. Composite deck slabs are generally competitive
where the concrete oor has to be completed quickly and where medium level of
re protection to steel work is su cient. There is presently no Indian standard
covering the design of composite oor systems using pro led sheeting.
In composite oors, the structural behavior is similar to a reinforced concrete
[17]
slab, with the steel sheeting acting as the tension reinforcement .
Figure 3.7: Types of pro led deck
3.7.4 Advantages Of Pro led Deck
The main structural and other bene ts of using composite oors with pro led
steel decking are:
Savings in steel weight are typically 30% to 50% over non-composite construction
Greater sti ness of composite beams results in shallower depths for the
same span. Hence lower stored heights are adequate resulting in savings in
classing costs, reduction in wind loading and savings in foundation costs
faster rate of construction.
The steel decking performs a number of roles, such as:
It supports loads during construction and acts as a working platform.
It develops adequate composite action with concrete to resist the imposed

load-ing.

It transfers in-plane loading by diaphragm action to vertical bracing or shear

walls.
It stabilizes the volume of concrete in tension zone.
It distributes shrinkage strains, thus preventing serious cracking of concrete.
Excessive ponding in long span composite oors shall be avoided by providing

required propping. Otherwise, the pro led sheet de ects considerably requiring
additional concrete at the center that may add to the concreting cost.
3.8 Shear Connectors
Shear connectors are steel elements such as studs, bars, spiral or another
similar devices welded to the top ange of the steel section and intended to
transmit the horizontal shear between the steel section and the cast in-situ
concrete and also to prevent vertical separation at the interface.
Shear connections are essential for steel concrete construction as they integrate
the compression capacity of supported concrete slab with supporting steel
beams/girders to improve the load carrying capacity as well as overall rigidity.
Though steel to concrete bond may help shear transfer between the two to certain
extent, yet it is neglected as per the codes because of its uncertainty. All codes
[12]
therefore, specify positive connectors at the interface of steel and concrete .
[12]
Figure 3.8: headed stud Shear Connector
The most widely used type of connector is the headed stud (Fig. 3.8). These
range in diameter from 13 to 25 mm, and in length, h, from 65 to 150 mm, though
longer studs are sometimes used. Studs should have an ultimate tensile strength
of at least 450 N/mm2 and an elongation of at least 15%. The advantages of stud
connectors are that the welding process is rapid, they provide little obstruction to
reinforcement in the concrete slab, and they are equally strong and sti in shear in
all directions normal to the axis of the stud.

3.9 Types Of Shear Connectors
The total shear force at the interface between a concrete slab and steel beam
is approximately eight times the total load carried by the beam. Therefore,
mechanical shear connectors are required at the steel-concrete interface. These
connectors are designed for:
(a) Transmit longitudinal shear along the interface
(b) Prevent separation of steel beam and concrete slab at the interface.
Thus, mechanical shear connectors are provided to transmit the horizontal

shear between the steel beam and the concrete slab, ignoring the e ect of any
bond between the two. It also resists uplift force acting at the steel interface.
[12]
Commonly used types of shear connectors as per IS: 11384 -1985 . There are
three main types of shear connectors; rigid shear connectors, exible shear
connectors and anchorage shear connectors. These are explained below:
Figure 3.9: Types of Shear Connectors
3.9.1 Rigid Type

As the name implies, these connectors are very sti and they sustain only a small
deformation while resisting shear force. They derive their resistance from bearing
pressure on the concrete, and fail due to crushing of concrete. Short bars, angles, T-
sections are common examples of this type of connectors. Also anchorage devices
like hooped bars are attached with these connectors to prevent vertical separation.
3.9.2 Flexible Type
Headed studs, channels come under this category. These connectors are welded to
the ange of the steel beam. They derive their stress resistance through bending and
undergo large deformation before failure. Typical exible connectors are shown in Fig.3.9
The stud connectors are the types used extensively. The shank and the weld collar
adjacent to steel beam resist the shear loads whereas the head resists the uplift.

Table 3.2:
3.9.3 Anchorage Shear Connectors
Anchorage type shear connector is used to resist longitudinal shear and to

prevent separation, if the beam/ girder from the concrete slab at the interface
through bond. In this case, mild steel inclined rods or steel rods in the form of
helical stirrups are welded on the top angle of the steel beam.
3.10 e ect of shear connection on bending and shear stresses
The behavior of composite beams under transverse loading is in two extreme

cases where a) a full interaction (b) with no interaction, can best be illustrated by
using two identical beams, each having a cross section of b x h and spanning a
distance of l, one placed at the top of the other. The beams support a uniformly
distributed load of w/unit length. For theoretical explanation, two extreme cases
of no interaction and 100 %(full) interaction are analyzed.
[12]
Moment capacity of composite section with full shear interaction (according to IS :11384 -1985)
3.11 Reinforcement For Shrinkage And Temperature Stresses
In buildings, temperature di erence in the slabs is negligible; thus there is no

need to provide reinforcement to account for temperature stresses. The e ect of
shrinkage is considered and the total shrinkage strain for design may be taken as
0.003 in the absence of the test data.
3.12 Composite Beam Stage

The composite beam formed by employing the pro led steel sheeting is di erent from
the one with a normal solid slab, as the pro ling would in uence its strength and sti ness.
This is termed `composite beam stage'. In this case, the pro led deck, which is xed
transverse to the beam, results in voids within the depth of the associated slab. Thus, the
area of concrete Used in calculating the section properties can only be

that depth of slab above the top ange of the pro le. In addition, any stud connector
welded through the sheeting must lie within the area of concrete in the trough of the
pro ling. Consequently, if trough is narrow, reduction in strength must be made
because of the reduction in area of constraining concrete. In current design methods,
conservatively the steel sheeting is ignored while calculating shear resistance.
3.13 Composite Slab Stage

The structural behavior of the composite slab is similar to that of a reinforced
concrete beam with no shear reinforcement. The steel sheeting provides adequate
tensile capacity in order to act with no shear reinforcement. The shear between the
steel and concrete must be carried by friction and bond between the materials. The
mechanical keying action of the embossments is of great importance. This is
especially so in open trapezoidal pro les, where the embossments must also provide
resistance to vertical separation. In addition to structural adequacy, the nished slab
must be capable of satisfying the requirements of re resistance.
3.14 Ultimate Load Behavior Of Composite Beam
The design procedure of composite beams depends upon the class of the
compres-sion ange and web. Classi cation of the sections suggested in Eurocode
4 based upon the buckling tendency of steel ange or web. The resistance to
buckling is a function of width to thickness ratio of compression members. For
simply supported composite beams the steel compression ange is restrained
from local as well as lat-eral buckling due to its connection to concrete slab.
Moreover, the plastic neutral axis is usually within the slab or the steel ange for
full interaction. So, the web is not in compression. This allows the composite
[18]
section to be analysed using plastic method .
The assumptions made for the analyses of the Ultimate Moment Capacity of
the section (according to Eurocode 4) are as follows:
The tensile strength of concrete is ignored.
Plane sections of both structural steel and reinforced concrete remain plane
after bending.
The e ective area of concrete resists a constant stress of 0:85 (f ck) cy = c

(where ( fck)cy) = cylinder strength of concrete; and c = partial safety factor for
concrete) over the depth between plastic neutral axis and the most
compressed bre of concrete.

The e ective area of steel member is stressed to its design yield strength f y=
awhere fy is the yield strength of steel and a is the material safety factor for steel.
Figure 3.10: Resistance to sagging bending of composite section for full interaction
The notations used here are as follows: -

Aa =area of steel section
a =partial safety factor for structural steel
c = partial safety factor for concrete
beff =e ective width of ange of slab
fy =yield strength of steel
(fck)cy =characteristic (cylinder) compressive strength of
concrete hc =distance of rib from top of concrete ht =total depth
of concrete slab
hg =depth of centre of steel section from top of steel ange
Note: Cylinder strength of concrete (f ck)cy is usually taken as 0.8 times the
cube strength.
3.15 Bending Resistance Of Composite Slab
The structural properties of pro led sheet along with reinforcement provided
and concrete with a positive type of interlock between concrete and steel deck is
the basis of a composite oor. Some loss of interaction and hence slip may occur
between concrete{steel interface. Such a case is known as `partial interaction'
Failure in such cases due to a combination of exure and shear.
The width of the slab `b' is one typical wavelength of pro led sheeting. The
overall thickness is ht and the depth of concrete above main at surface is h c.
Normally , ht is not less than 80 mm and h c is not less than 40 mm from sound
and re insulation considerations.

The neutral axis normally lies in the concrete in case of full shear connection;
but in regions of partial shear connection, the neutral axis may be within the steel
section, in which case local buckling of steel should be checked.
For sheeting in tension, the width of embossments should be neglected.
Therefore, the e ective area `A p' per meter and height of centre of area above bottom
`e' are usually based on tests. The plastic neutral axis e p is generally larger than e.
The simple plastic theory of exure is used for analysis of these oors for checking
the design at Limit State of collapse load. Eurocode assumes the equivalent ultimate
stress of concrete in compression as 0:85(f ck)cy= c is the characteristics cylinder
com-pression strength of concrete. However, IS 456:2000 uses an average stress of
0.36 (fck)cu accommodating the value of c and considering (f ck)cu as Compressive
force in concrete Ncf equal to steel yield force Npa.
3.16 Shear Resistance Of Composite Slab
The shear resistance of composite slab largely depends on connection

between pro led and deck concrete.
Shear resistance of composite slab consists of:
Natural bond between concrete and steel due to adhesion.
Mechanical interlock provided by dimples on sheet and shear connectors.
Provision of end anchorage by shot red pins or by welding studs when

sheeting is made to rest on steel beams.
3.17 Pro led Steel Sheeting As Shuttering
Veri cation is required for the pro led steel sheeting at the construction stage
when it is acting as formwork for the wet concrete, construction loads and storage
loads if any. While calculating the loads on the pro led sheet, increased depth of
concrete due to de ection of the sheeting i.e., ponding e ect has to be
considered. Account should be taken of the e ect of props, if any.
If the central de ection ( ) of the pro led deck in non-composite stage is less
than l/325 or 20mm, whichever is smaller, then the ponding e ect may be ignored
in the design of pro led deck.

3.18 Loads On Pro led Sheeting

Construction loads, which include the weight of operatives, concreting plant and
any impact, or vibration, that may occur during construction should be considered in
the design. These loads should be arranged in such a way that they cause maximum
bending moment and shear. In any area of 3m by 3m (or the span length, if less), in
addition to weight of wet concrete, construction loads and weight of surplus concrete
2
should be provided for by assuming a load of 1.5 kN/m . Over the remaining area a
2
load of 0.75 kN/m should be added to the weight of wet concrete.
3.19 Design Considerations

Composite oors are designed based on limit state design philosophy. Since IS
456:2000 is also based on limit state methods, the same has been followed wherever it
is applicable. The design should ensure an adequate degree of safety and serviceability
of structure. The structure should therefore be checked for ultimate and serviceability
limit states. The main economy in using pro led deck is achieved due to speed in
construction. Normally 2.5 to 4.0m spans can be handled without propping and spans
in excess 4m will require propping. The yield strength of decking steel is in the range
2
of 220 to 460 N/mm . Though light { weight concrete is preferable both from reducing
the e ect of ponding de ection as well as increasing the re resistance, the normal
practice in India is to use concrete of grade M20 to M30. The pro led deck depth
normally available ranges from 40 to 85mm and the metal substrate thickness 0.7mm
to 1.6mm. The normal span/depth values for continuous composite slab should be
chosen to be less than 35. The overall depth of the composite slab should not be less
than 90mm and thickness of concrete, hc shall not be less than 50mm.
3.20 Design Method

As there is no Indian standard covering pro le decking, Eurocode 4 (EC4)
provi-sions are considered. The design method de ned in EC4 requires that slab
be checked rstly for bending capacity, assuming full bond between concrete and
steel, secondly for shear bond capacity and, nally, for vertical shear. The analysis
of the bending capacity of the slab may be carried out as though the slab was of
reinforced con-crete with the steel deck acting as reinforcement. However, no
satisfactory analytical method has been developed as far for estimating the value
shear bond capacity. Based on test data available, the loads at the construction
stage often govern the allowable span rather at the composite slab stage.

3.21 Steel-concrete Composite Columns

General
A steel-concrete composite column is a compression member, comprising either a
concrete encased hot-rolled steel section or a concrete lled tubular section of hot-
rolled steel and is generally used as a load-bearing member in a composite framed
structure. Typical cross-sections of composite columns with fully and partially con-
crete encased steel sections are illustrated in Fig. 3.11 and Fig.3.12 shows three
typical cross-sections of concrete lled tubular sections. Note that there is no
requirement to provide additional reinforcing steel for composite concrete lled tubular
[18]
sections, except for requirements of re resistance where appropriate .
Figure 3.11: Typical cross-sections of fully and partially concrete encased columns
Figure 3.12: Typical cross-sections of concrete lled tubular sections
As in other structural components, a composite column must also be designed for

the Ultimate Limit State. For structural adequacy, the internal forces and moments

resulting from the most unfavorable load combination should not exceed the design
resistance of the composite cross-sections. While local buckling of the steel sections
may be eliminated, the reduction in the compression resistance of the composite column
due to overall buckling should de nitely be allowed for, together with the e ects of
residual stresses and initial imperfections. Moreover, the second order e ects in slender
columns as well as the e ect of creep and shrinkage of concrete under long term loading
must be considered, if they are signi cant. The reduction in exural sti ness due to
cracking of the concrete in the tension area should also be considered.
In a composite column both the steel and concrete would resist the external
loading by interacting together by bond and friction. Supplementary reinforcement
in the concrete encasement prevents excessive spalling of concrete both under
normal load and re conditions.
In composite construction, the bare steel sections support the initial construction
loads, including the weight of structure during construction. Concrete is later cast
around the steel section, or lled inside the tubular sections. The concrete and steel
are combined in such a fashion that the advantages of both the materials are uti-
lized e ectively in composite column. The lighter weight and higher strength of steel
permit the use of smaller and lighter foundations. The subsequent concrete addition
enables the building frame to easily limit the sway and lateral de ections. With the
use of composite columns along with composite decking and composite beams it is
possible to erect high rise structures in an extremely e cient manner. There is quite a
vertical spread of construction activity carried out simultaneously at any one time,
with numerous trades working simultaneously.
The advantages of composite columns are:
Increased strength for a given cross sectional dimension.
Increased sti ness, leading to reduced slenderness and increased buckling

resis-tance.
Good re resistance in the case of concrete encased columns.
Corrosion protection in encased columns.

3.21.1 Types Of Sections And Advantages
The most common types of steel-concrete composite columns are shown in

Figure 3.13.
The cross sections can be classi ed in 3 groups:
Fully encased
Partially encased
Concrete lled
Figure 3.13: Typical steel concrete composite columns .

(a) I steel pro le fully encased in concrete. (b) I steel pro le partially encased
in concrete.
(c)Hollow steel section lled of concrete. (d) Circular steel section lled of concrete.
The rst type of cross-section, which is illustrated in Figure 3.13a, is characterized by I-

steel pro les fully encased in concrete. In the second type of cross-section (See Figure
3.13b), the steel pro le is partially encased in concrete while the external surface of the
steel anges is uncovered. In the third type, the concrete completely lls a steel hollow
section. In this case, the column behavior is di erent when rectangular steel sections
(Figure 3.13) or circular steel sections (Figure 3.13d) are considered. Composite
columns embody several advantages. In general, the two limit cases of a composite
section are the reinforced concrete section, when the steel area is small, and the steel
section, when concrete is not introduced. Thereby, the composite system is a more
complete structural system than simple reinforced concrete or steel elements.

When adopting a composite section, the amount of structural steel, reinforcing steel
and concrete area, and the geometry as well as the position of the three materials
represent relevant design parameters. Indeed, a number of di erent combinations are
possible thus leading to a exible design. From a technical viewpoint, the fully encased
and partially encased columns o er good re and corrosion resistance properties, owing to
the protection o ered by concrete. On the other hand, the most important bene t of the
concrete lled type owing to the cross-section is that the steel tube also serves as form-
work for concrete even if adequate additives have to be used for reducing the concrete
separation from the steel section due to shrinkage.
Further advantages are associated with the constructional techniques: for instance, it
is possible to set up entirely the steel part of the structure and then to complete it with
concrete at alternate levels reducing erection time. It is also possibly a convenient
precast of partially encased columns. One important aspect is that concrete prevents
local buckling, more e ectively in fully encased sections but also in partially encased
ones. Also, for concrete lled sections this problem is reduced. Indeed, concrete
represents an e ective bound for steel in order to prevent or delay the critical warping.
Thereby, the elements are generally characterized by a compact behavior while the
section reaches full plastic state. In the concrete lled type, the steel provides bene ts to
concrete. In detail, the con nement e ect due to steel is high for the rectangular sections
and very high for circular sections, resulting in the increasing of strength with a great
enhancement of ductility. The aforementioned last advantage appears to be more
relevant to seismic countries, in which composite columns are largely used. Clearly, the
performances of composite columns require a proper design of connections, both
between the two materials (i.e., concrete and steel) and between the two elements (i.e.,
beams and/or columns and base columns).
3.21.2 Concrete
Concrete strengths are speci ed in terms of the characteristic cube strengths,

(fck)cu, measured at 28 days. Table 3.3 gives the properties of di erent grades of
[18]
concrete according to IS: 456-2000 and the corresponding EC4 values .
Table 3.3: Properties of concrete

Grade designation M25 M30 M35 M40
2
(fck)cu( N/mm ) 25 30 35 40
2
(fck)cy( N/mm ) 20 25 28 32
2
fctm( N/mm ) 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.3
2
Ecm = 5700 p (fck )cu N/mm 28500 31220 33720 36050

Encased steel sections and concrete lled rectangular/square tubular

sections :-
Figure 3.14: Stress distribution of the plastic resistance to compression of an encased

I section
The plastic resistance of an encased steel section or concrete lled rectangular

or square section (i.e. the so-called \squash load") is given by the sum of the
resistances of the components as follows:
Pp = Aa:fy= a + c:Ac:(fck)cy= c + As:fsk= s:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(3:0)
Pp = Aa:fy= a + c:Ac:(0:80 (fck)cu)= c + As:fsk= s:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(3:1)
where
Aa, Ac and As are the areas of the steel section, the concrete and the
reinforcing steel respectively
fy , (fck)cy and fsk are the yield strength of the steel section, the characteristic
com-pressive strength (cylinder) of the concrete, and the yield strength of the
reinforcing steel respectively.
(fck)cu the characteristic compressive strength (cube) of the concrete
c strength coe cient for concrete, which is 1.0 for concrete lled tubular
sections, and 0.85 for fully or partially concrete encased steel sections.
For ease of expression, are presented as the design strengths of the respective
materials such as py , pck and psk. Eqn. (1) can therefore be rewritten as follows:
Pp = Aapy + Acpck + Aspsk::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(3:2)
At this stage it should be pointed out that the Indian Standards for composite
con-struction (IS:11384-1985) does not make any speci c reference to composite
columns. The provisions contained in IS: 456 - 2000 are often invoked for design
of composite structures.
Extension of IS: 456 - 2000 to composite columns will result in the following
equa-tion:

Pp = Aapy + Acpck + Aspsk::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(3:2a)
where
py = 0:87fy; pck = 0:4(fck)cuandpsk = 0:67fy:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(3:2b)
An important design parameter is the steel contribution ratio, a which is de ned

in EC4 as follows:
Aa py
a= ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(3:3)
Pp
IS: 456 - 2000 is also to be employed for the spacing and design of ties.
3.22 Resistance Of Cross-section To Compression
The plastic compression resistance of a composite cross-section represents

the max-imum load that can be applied to a short composite column. Concrete
lled circular tubular sections exhibit enhanced resistance due to the tri-axial con
nement e ects. Fully or partially concrete encased steel sections and concrete
lled rectangular tubu-lar sections do not achieve such enhancement.

Chapter 4
METHODOLOGIES
GENERAL
4.1 Structural Con guration

Seismic evaluation of the building models is performed by Equivalent Static Analy-
[14]
sis (ESA) and Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) as per IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002 .
A seismic analysis is performed by subjecting a structure to a monotonically
increasing pattern of lateral loads, representing the inertial forces, which would be
experienced by the structure when subjected to ground shaking. Under incrementally
increasing loads, various structural elements may yield sequentially. Consequently,
at each event, the structure experiences a loss in sti ness and strength.
4.1.1 Parameters Considered

The parameters considered in the performance evaluation are as under
1. Analysis methods: Equivalent static analysis (ESA) and Response spectrum

analysis (RSA).
2. Maximum Displacements, Axial Forces, lateral force, time period in the build-
ings.
The study has been carried out with some basic assumptions in design
criteria/parameters for composite as well as RCC including relevant soil parameters,
wind speed, terrain category and topography, earthquake zone and values of coe
cients and acceleration based on available local data and stipulations of Bureau of
Indian Standards and Euro codes.
31
4.2 Softwares
ETABS 2013
Here an e ort is made to study the e ect of seismic loads on model and thus
assess their seismic vulnerability by performing equivalent static analysis (ESA) and
response spectrum method (RSA). The seismic base shear, maximum displacement
and axial force of these structures are obtained to the static analysis corresponding
[14]
to 5% of the critical damping provided in IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002 criteria for
earthquake resistance design of structure. Natural periods are determined from
traditional eigen value problem using mass and sti ness matrices. The natural period
of the building compared with analysis and codal empirical formula. The seismic
base shear of these building are obtained due to the static analysis corresponding to
5% of the critical damping provided in Indian Standard criteria for earthquake
resistance design of structure, considering xed base condition.
MS O ce Excel
Excel is used to represent the graphs and results of equivalent static analysis
(ESA) and response spectrum analysis (RSA) obtained from software after
analyzing the structures with incorporating the loads.
4.3 Determination Of Design Lateral Force

The procedures to determine lateral forces in the code, IS 1893 (Part-1):
[14]
2002 are based on the approximation e ects, yielding can be accounted for
linear analysis of the building using the design spectrum. This analysis is carried
out either by modal analysis procedure or dynamic analysis procedure. A simpli
ed method may also be adopted that will be referred as lateral force procedure or
equivalent static procedure. The main di erence between the equivalent static
analysis procedure and dynamic analysis procedure lies in the magnitude and
distribution of lateral forces over the height of the buildings. In the dynamic
analysis procedure, the lateral forces are based on properties of the natural
vibration modes of the building, which are determined by distribution of mass and
sti ness over height. In the equivalent lateral force procedure, the magnitude of
forces is based on an estimation of the fundamental period and on the distribution
of forces as given by a simple formula that is appropriate only for regular building.

4.4 Specifying The Analysis Type

The analysis for RCC structure has been done considering the entire structure as
a 3D model framed structure using ETBAS 2013. Beams and columns are modeled
as beam and column elements. Shear wall and slab are modeled as membrane
element. The main objective of modeling the whole structure as a 3D model is to
take into account the behavior of each and every component in space structure
environment. The slab, which carries dead load and live load, is idealized using oor
load option. Lift well and staircase walls are modeled as shear walls to resist the
lateral loads like wind and earthquake load in the basement. These pressures are
considered using equivalent elemental loads on the plinth and ground oor beams.
4.5 Summary
In this study, the lateral design forces are determined by the equivalent static
method and the response spectrum method as per the provisions of IS 1893 (Part-1):
[14]
2002 , for the building models to be considered for the study. The buildings are
analyzed by results of the building for the di erent load combinations to arrive at a
conclusion regarding the importance of carrying out seismic analysis.

Chapter 5
MODELING AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Model Design

One of the objectives of this model designing is to ensure that the models
represent the characteristics of high rise buildings. These days, high-rise buildings
are di erent in shape, height and functions. This makes each building characteristics
di erent from each others. There are some standards for each kind of high-rise
buildings, such as residential, o cial and commercials. However for model designing
main factors such as grid spacing, oor shape, oor height and column section were
considered. Three models with di erent number of stories with 10 storey, 20 storey
and 30 storey having same oor plan of 30m x 24m dimensions were considered for
this study. The oor plans were divided into ve by six bays in such a way that center to
center distance between two grids is 6 meters by 4 meters respectively as shown in
Figure 5.1. The oor height of the building was assumed as 3.2 meters for all oors and
plinth height is 4.2 meters above from foundation base as shown in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.1: Typical Plan of RCC Structure
34
Figure 5.2: RCC Structure Elevation
Figure 5.3: RCC Structure 3D Model

The following two distinct building models are used in the study:
1. Model [RCC] : Buildings having 10,20 and 30 storey's and shear wall placed
as centrally core (Box Type) for lift and staircase purpose.
2. Model [Composite]: Buildings having 10, 20 and 30 storey's and shear wall
placed as centrally core (Box Type).
Code References:
IS 1893:2002(part 1)
IS 875:1987(part 1 to 5)
IS 11384:1985
IS 800:2007
IS 456:2000
SP 16:1978
Euro code 3(part1.1)
Euro code 4(part1.1)
5.2 ETABS 2013 Procedure For Modeling

In the present study ETABS 2013 is the most popular structural engineering soft-
ware product for 3D model generation, analysis and multi-material design. The soft-
ware is able to perform the analysis of space frame under static loading. The software
accepts static loads (either forces or displacements) as well as dynamic (accelerations)
actions. The analysis of the RCC and composite multistorey buildings is carried out
using ETABS 2013 software. The following topics describe some of the important
areas in the modeling.
5.3 Building Details

The building considered here is an o ce building having 10 storey, 20 storey and
30 storey model located in seismic zone III & wind velocity 39 m/s. the plan of
building is shown in g. 5.1 the building is planned to facilitate the basic requirements
of an o ce building. The plan of building is kept symmetric about both the axes.
Separate provisions are made for lift, staircase and other utilities; however they are
excluded from scope of work. The plan dimension of the building is 30m x 24m.
height of each storey is kept same as 3.2m and base height is kept as 4.2m and 1m
parapet height is considered. The study is carried out on the same building plan for
R.C.C. and composite construction with some basic assumption made for deciding
preliminary sections of both the structures. The basic loading on both types of
structures are kept same, other relevant data is tabulated in table 5.1 & 5.2.

5.4 RCC Structure Model
The data for the analysis of RCC structure are given in table 5.1. This table
includes the dimensions of the building, height of the building, material properties.
Table 5.1: Data For Analysis of RCC Structure

1. Plan dimension 30 m x 24 m
10 Storey 33 m
2. Total Height of building 20 Storey 65 m
30 Storey 97 m
3. Height of each storey 3.2 m
4. Height of parapet 1m
5. Thickness of slab 0.125 m
6. Thickness of wall 0.15 m
7. Seismic zone III
8. Wind speed 39 m/s
9. Importance factor 1.5
10. Zone factor 0.16
2
11. Floor nish 1 kN/m
2
12. Live load 4 kN/m
13. Grade of concrete for slabs M30
14. Grade of concrete for beams and columns M30
15. Grade of reinforcing steel Fe415
3
16. Density of concrete 25 kN/m
3
17. Density of brick 18.5 kN/m
18. Damping ratio 5%
5.5 Type Materials Used In Modeling Of Structure

Using the ETABS 2013 software grid line is generated. After creating a grid line
we have to de ne material by using de ne menu. After de ning properties, beam are
drawn using Create Line Command and column is drawn using Create Column com-
mand. And Slab is assigned as membrane for RCC and deck for composite building.
The material properties is assigned to model as per codal requirements. The material
properties of concrete is (E, Poisson, Density, Alpha, etc.) will be assigned along with
2
the cross-section name. The modulus of elasticity is 25 kN/mm and Poisson's ratio
3
is 0.17 and density is 25 kN/m and alpha is 10E-6. After constructing model we have
to De ne various loads (Dead load, live load, Earthquake load) using de ne menu.
The base joint of all the columns are restrained against translation and rotation about
all the 3 global axes. The xed support is assigned.

Table 5.2: Beam Size for RCC building

Model-1 Model -2 Model -3
RCC building
10 storey 20 storey 30 storey
th
GF to 10 oor 0.23 m x 0.5 m 0.23 m x 0.5 m 0.3 m x 0.6 m
th th
10 oor to 20 oor - 0.23 m x 0.5 m 0.3 m x 0.6 m
th th
20 oor to 30 oor - - 0.3 m x 0.6 m
Table 5.3: Column Size for RCC building

RCC building
th
GF to 10 oor 0.4 m x 0.4 m 0.6 m x 0.6 m 0.8 m x 0.8 m
th th
10 oor to 20 oor - 0.4 m x 0.4 m 0.6 m x 0.6 m
th th
20 oor to 30 oor - - 0.5 m x 0.5 m
5.6 Analysis Results
The 10 storey, 20 storey and 30 storey composite and RCC multistoreyed

residential building is considered. The analysis is carried out by ETABS 2013
software. The analysis results for RCC beams, RCC columns, and nodal
displacement is given in next chapter.
Figure 5.4: Storey response plots from Etab 2013 software

RCC Beams
The pattern and variation of bending moment for a typical oor has shown in gure
5.5. Out of all possible combinations, the maximum positive and negative
bending moments are taken.
Figure 5.5: Bending Moment Diagram for RCC Structure
5.7 Composite Structure Model

The composite structure is modeled as 3D frame. Composite beams are modeled
as beam element and RCC column are modeled as RCC column element and shear
wall are modeled as membrane element. The 3D model of the composite frame for
10 storey, 20 storey and 30 storey building was conceived considering RCC shear
wall. The shear wall is modeled as reinforced concrete structure. In case of some
typical composite option the oor to oor height of the building has been considered as
3.2m. The composite structure analysis models is shown in below g.5.6.
Figure 5.6: Typical Plan of Composite Structure

The data for the analysis of composite structure are given in table 5.4. This table
includes the dimensions of the building , height of the building , material properties.
Table 5.4: Data For Analysis of Composite Structure

1. Plan dimension 30 m x 24 m
10 Storey 33 m
2. Total Height of building 20 Storey 65 m
30 Storey 97 m
3. Height of each storey 3.2 m
4. Height of parapet 1m
5. Thickness of slab 0.125 m
6. Thickness of wall 0.15 m
7. Seismic zone III
8. Wind speed 39 m/s
9. Importance factor 1.5
10. Zone factor 0.16
2
11. Floor nish 1 kN/m
2
12. Live load 4 kN/m
13. Grade of concrete for slabs M30
14. Grade of concrete for beams and columns M30
15. Grade of reinforcing steel Fe415
3
16. Density of concrete 25 kN/m
3
17. Density of brick 18.5 kN/m
18. Damping ratio 5%
5.8 Load Combinations For Composite Building
Di erent loads and the load combinations as per (Euro code 3 and 4) considered
for the analysis are:
1.35DL+1.5LL
1.35DL+1.5LL+1.05EQLx or 1.35DL+1.5LL+1.05EQLy
1.35DL+1.05LL +1.5EQLx or 1.35DL + 1.05LL + 1.5EQLy
1.5(DL+EQLx) or 1.5(DL+EQLy)
5.9 Type Of Materials Used In Modeling Of Composite Struc-

ture
Creating a model plan using ETABS 2013 software. After creating a model we have to
assign material properties. To de ne the material of the composite beams, using de ne
menu sections are created. In that dialogue box we get a composite section for
composite beams, and composite column. To assign slab composite oor deck slab is de
3
ned as per required dimension. Concrete density is 25kN/m . Then we assign

the selected beams, column and deck slab to composite structure. Same
procedure is adopted to all spans.
Table 5.5: Beam size for composite Structure

Composite building
th MB - ISWB 400 MB - ISWB 400 MB - ISWB 400
GF to 10 oor SB - ISWB 200 SB - ISWB 200 SB - ISWB 200
th th MB - ISWB 400 MB - ISWB 400
10 oor to 20 oor - SB - ISWB 200 SB - ISWB 200
th th MB - ISWB 400
20 oor to 30 oor - - SB - ISWB 200
NOTE : MB - Main Beam , SB - Secondary Beam
Table 5.6: Column Size for Composite structure

Composite building
th 0.3 m x 0.3 m 0.4 m x 0.4 m 0.6 m x 0.6 m
GF to 10 oor ISWB 250 Embedded ISWB 250 Embedded ISWB 500 Embedded
th th 0.4 m x 0.4 m 0.6 m x 0.6 m
10 oor to 20 oor - ISWB 250 Embedded ISWB 500 Embedded
th th 0.6 m x 0.6 m
20 oor to 30 oor - - ISWB 500 Embedded
5.10 Equivalent Static Method
Along any principal direction, the total design lateral force or design base
shear is given in terms of design horizontal seismic coe cient and seismic weight
of the structure. Design horizontal seismic coe cient depends on the zone factor
of the site, importance of the structure, response reduction factor of the lateral
load resisting elements and the natural fundamental period of the structure.
Following procedure is generally used for the Equivalent Static Analysis:
1. Determination of Design Base Shear (VB) of the

building VB = AhW
h
A= Z:I:Sa
2:R:g
Where,
Ah = Design horizontal seismic coe cient
W = Seismic weight of the building

Z = Zone factor
I = Importance factor
R = Response reduction factor
S
ga = Average response acceleration coe cient
2. The design base shear (VB) computed is then distributed along the height
of the structure using a parabolic distribution expression:
W h2
Q=V : i: i
i B n 2
i=0Wi:h i
Where,
Qi = Design lateral force at oor i
Wi = Seismic weight of oor i
hi = Height of oor i measured from base
n = Number of storey's in the building is the number of levels at which
the masses are located.
The natural period of the building is calculated by the expressions
h
T = 0:09
p
a d
For RC frame building with brick in ll panels as given in IS -1893 (Part 1):
[14]
2002 , Where,
h = height of the building in m.
d = base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along the
direction of the lateral force.
Thus, the fundamental natural period for all the models in this method is di
erent as height of the models varies. The lateral load calculation and its
[14]
distribution along the height are done as per IS -1893 (Part-1): 2002 . The
seismic weight is calculated using full dead load and 25% of live load.
For the equivalent static load analysis, the earthquake load is considered in
both the longitudinal and transverse directions. These loads are applied once in
longitudinal direction at centre of mass and analysis is carried out and analysis is
repeated by applying these seismic loads in other direction.
The following load combinations are considered for the analysis and design as
[14]
per IS-1893 (Part 1): 2002 .

Table 5.7: Load combination for RCC structure

Load Combination Load Factors
Gravity analysis 1.5(DL+LL)
1.2(DL + LL±ELX)
1.2(DL + LL±ELY )
Equivalent Static Analysis 1.5(DL±ELX)
1.5(DL±ELY )
0.9DL±1.5ELX
0.9DL±1.5ELY
1.2(DL + LL±RSX)
1.2(DL + LL±RSY )
Response Spectrum Analysis 1.5(DL±RSX)
1.5(DL±RSY )
0.9DL±1.5RSX
0.9DL±1.5RSY
5.11 Response Spectrum Method

According to the code, dynamic analysis may be performed either by the response
spectrum method or by the time history method. In either method, the design base shear
(VB) is compared with a base shear (V B) calculated using the Equivalent Static
procedure. It is required that VB is less than V B, all the response quantities (for example
member forces, displacements, storey forces, storey shears and base reactions)
shall be multiplied by V B .
V
B
The code suggests that the number of modes to be used in the analysis to be
such that the total of modal masses of all modes considered is at least 90 percent
of the total seismic mass. The modes are considered closely spaced if natural
frequencies di er from each other by 10 percent or less the lower frequency.
Alternatively SRSS method could be used from modes which are not closely
[14]
spaced . In the present work SRSS method is used during the analysis.
Dynamic analysis of the building models is performed using ETABS 2013

software. The lateral loads generated by the software correspond to the seismic
[14]
zone III and 5% damped response spectrum given in IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 .
The natural period values are calculated by software, by solving the Eigen value
problem of the model. Thus, the total earthquake load generated and its
distribution along the height corresponds to the mass and sti ness distribution as
modeled in software. Here, as in the equivalent static analysis (ESA), the seismic
mass is calculated using full dead load plus 25% of live load.
The 5% damped response spectrum is considered for all modes of the building. After
de ning the response spectrum case, analysis is carried out. If the displacements and the
base shears obtained by response spectrum method are less than the equivalent

[14]
static base shear, then as per clause 7.8.2 of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 , scaling
has to be done by multiplying the response spectrum base shear, with the ratio of
equivalent static base shear (V B) to the response spectrum base shear (VB).
5.12 Load Calculations
Table 5.8: Load pattern on RCC and Composite structure

Dead Load
1. Wall Load 7.2 kN/m
2
2. Slab Load 3.125 kN/m
2
3. Floor Finish 1 kN/m
4. Parapet Load 3 kN/m
5. Stair Case 12 kN/m
2
6. Live Load 4 kN/m
1. Dead Load
The self wt. of the structural members is taken care in the
software Masonry Wall Load : (3-0.6) x 0.15 x 18.5=7.215 kN/m
Parapet Wall Load : 1 x0.15 x18.5 =2.775 kN/m
2 [11]
Floor Finish Load : 1.0 kN/m (Table 2 of IS 875(Part-1): 1987 )
2. Live Load
2 [11]
Live load on Floor : 4.0 kN/m (Table 1 of IS 875(Part-2): 1987 )
2
Live load on Roof : 1.5 kN/m
3. Seismic Load
[14]
Seismic Zone: Zone-III (As per IS 1893(Part-1): 2002 , pp-35)
Type of Structure: Ordinary shear wall with OMRF (Table 7 of IS
[14]
1893(Part-1):2002 )
Height of Buildings:
10 storey (G+9) 33m
20 storey (G+19) 65m
30 storey (G+29) 97m
Damping ratio : 5% for RC frame structure
[14]
Seismic zone factor (Z) : 0.16 (Table 2 of IS 1893(Part-1): 2002 , pp-16)
[14]
Importance factor (I) : 1.5 (Table 6 of IS 1893(Part-1): 2002 , pp-18)
[14]
Response reduction factor (R) : 3.0 (Table 7 of IS 1893(Part-1): 2002 )
[14]
Fundamental Natural Period of vibration (T a) (As per IS 1893(Part-1): 2002 )
For all models: Building with Shear Wall
h
Ta = 0:09 p d

Model Ta(sec) in X direction Ta(Sec) in Y direction

10 storey 0.542 0.606
20 storey 1.068 1.194
30 storey 1.593 1.782
Foundation Soil type = Type-II (medium Soil) (As per IS 1893(Part-1):

2002[14]) For medium soil sites,
Sa 81 + 15T 0:00 T 0:10

>
g = >2:50 0:10 T 0:55
>
< 1:36
>
> T 0:55 T 4:0
>
Figure 5.7: Response spectra for rock and soil sites for 5 percent damping
5.13 Summary
The examples of buildings are considered in the present study are modeled in
ETABS 2013 by giving all the required input data. The building models are
analyzed sep-arately for equivalent static analysis (ESA) and response spectrum
analysis (RSA) with respective load combinations. The observations and
discussions on the results obtained are detailed in next chapter.

Chapter 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
6.1 General
In this chapter di erent types of analysis carried out namely Equivalent Static
Analy-sis (ESA) and Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) are presented. The di
erent types of analysis are carried out in ETABS 2013 software. For comparative
study the re-sults obtained for composite and RCC structure model is considered.
An e ort has been made to calculate all the structural parameter of composite and
RCC structure elements. In the present study, the composite and RCC multistory
residential build-ing is considered. The parameter considered are natural period,
lateral load, base shear,nodal displacement, maximum shear force, axial force
and maximum bending moment and total building weight is considered and their
variation in the form of graph is shown.
6.2 Base shear for RCC and composite building
The Table 6.1,Table 6.2 and Table 6.3 shows the design base shear for buildings
in X direction and Table 6.4,Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 shows the design base shear
for buildings in Y direction . The base shears are shown for equivalent static
analysis (ESA) and response spectrum analysis (RSA) for the buildings.
46
Table 6.1: Comparison of Base shear Vs. Storey No. For X- Direction[10 storey model]
BASE SHEAR
RCC COMPOSITE
STOREY NO
EQX - RCC RSPX - RCC EQX- Composite RSPX-Composite
10 1347.1795 1183.1148 899.5761 782.4221
9 2981.4182 2595.6031 2135.9501 1855.4417
8 4283.5239 3692.8257 3121.0507 2702.1236
7 5291.1855 4555.5585 3883.3913 3372.3404
6 6042.0917 5263.6409 4451.4851 3918.0124
5 6573.9315 5862.7866 4853.8454 4371.6995
4 6924.3936 6370.0265 5118.9856 4747.2609
3 7131.1671 6785.9742 5275.4188 5046.5444
2 7231.9406 7092.4881 5351.6584 5259.9409
1 7265.2928 7265.4963 5376.8637 5376.425
0 7265.2928 7265.4963 5376.8637 5376.425
EQX - RCC
RSPX - RCC
10 EQX- Composite
RSPX-Composite
Storey no's 6
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Base shear (kN)
Figure 6.1: Comparison of Base shear Vs. Storey No. For X- Direction [10 storey model]

Table 6.2: Comparison of Base shear Vs. Storey No. For X- Direction [20 storey model]
BASE SHEAR
RCC COMPOSITE
STOREY NO
20 754.44 945.6927 492.6445 617.5354
19 1768.9704 2061.157 1245.7033 1451.2529
18 2681.1521 2885.8422 1922.7945 2074.8203
17 3496.43 3442.4919 2527.9563 2504.3625
16 4220.2442 3776.8255 3065.2267 2772.443
15 4858.035 3953.9085 3538.6439 2925.5702
14 5415.2427 4048.1512 3952.2462 3017.0988
13 5897.3074 4128.2283 4310.0716 3096.5613
12 6309.6693 4242.3702 4616.1582 3199.2992
11 6657.7687 4412.7808 4874.5443 3342.4117
10 6958.4455 4654.1197 5089.2679 3529.3773
9 7214.2184 4975.5071 5264.3672 3758.2585
8 7418.0095 5362.4856 5403.8804 4026.1015
7 7575.7174 5804.3189 5511.8455 4327.1544
6 7693.2409 6279.8038 5592.3008 4648.4387
5 7776.4786 6754.587 5649.2844 4967.8247
4 7831.329 7185.9148 5686.8344 5257.1026
3 7863.6909 7532.7287 5708.989 5488.9226
2 7879.4628 7767.0225 5719.7863 5644.7315
1 7884.7376 7886.4362 5723.3648 5723.1877
0 7884.7376 7886.4362 5723.3648 5723.1877
EQX - RCC
RSPX - RCC
20
EQX- Composite
RSPX-Composite
15
Storey no's
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Base shear (kN)

Table 6.3: Comparison of Base shear Vs. Storey No. For X- Direction [30 storey model]
BASE SHEAR
RCC COMPOSITE
STOREY NO
30 586.2181 863.278 349.6192 547.5089
29 1385.7778 1906.3638 908.4851 1318.8248
28 2131.714 2730.7021 1429.8698 1924.21
27 2825.8877 3348.8749 1915.0743 2372.3167
26 3470.1599 3787.9544 2365.3993 2681.6165
25 4066.392 4087.1279 2782.1458 2879.0611
24 4616.4449 4291.3784 3166.6146 2996.2741
23 5122.1798 4442.6534 3520.1066 3064.1102
22 5585.4578 4571.4995 3843.9226 3107.1506
21 6008.14 4693.1717 4139.3636 3140.5191
20 6399.167 4812.8653 4407.7303 3170.736
19 6760.3777 4930.8826 4650.3236 3200.0812
18 7085.1499 5044.2622 4868.4445 3231.7801
17 7375.4205 5158.1915 5063.3937 3273.015
16 7633.1266 5282.7787 5236.4721 3334.2202
15 7860.2049 5428.3764 5388.9806 3425.3046
14 8058.5926 5600.62 5522.2201 3551.3653
13 8230.2264 5798.4554 5637.4913 3710.8781
12 8377.0433 6016.2329 5736.0953 3897.5202
11 8500.9802 6248.2053 5819.3328 4104.0812
10 8608.8268 6505.0785 5888.5047 4325.7002
9 8701.3512 6797.2594 5944.9119 4560.5111
8 8775.0714 7115.0053 5989.8552 4807.5359
7 8832.1213 7455.5068 6024.6356 5063.2418
6 8874.6348 7806.8878 6050.5537 5318.8859
5 8904.7455 8147.7419 6068.9107 5560.3058
4 8924.5873 8451.1376 6081.0072 5770.4825
3 8936.294 8691.4948 6088.1441 5933.8895
2 8941.9994 8851.9492 6091.6224 6041.1754
1 8943.9258 8932.8706 6092.7835 6094.1144
0 8943.9258 8932.8706 6092.7835 6094.1144

EQX - RCC
RSPX - RCC
30
EQX- COMPOSITE
RSPX-COMPOSITE
25
20
Storey no's
15
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Base shear (kN)
Table 6.4: Comparison of Base shear Vs. Storey No. For Y- Direction[10 storey model]
BASE SHEAR
RCC COMPOSITE
STOREY NO
EQY - RCC RSPY - RCC EQY- Composite RSPY - Composite
10 1209.3492 1030.0223 815.6157 693. 2803
9 2676.3886 2288.9635 1936.5948 1659.7715
8 3845.2756 3292.4078 2829.7526 2435.6905
7 4749.843 4094.4376 3520.9414 3056.6649
6 5423.9239 4751.6063 4036.0131 3562.035
5 5901.351 5299.0063 4400.8198 3978.2707
4 6215.9573 5752.0141 4641.2136 4318.0896
3 6401.5757 6113.9149 4783.0464 4584.7443
2 6492.0391 6374.6707 4852.1703 4772.5715
1 6521.979 6520.7536 4875.0231 4875.0254
0 6521.979 6520.7536 4875.0231 4875.0254
EQY - RCC
RSPY - RCC
10 EQY- Composite
RSPY-Composite
6
Storey no's
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Base shear (kN)
Figure 6.4: Comparison of Base shear Vs. Storey No. For Y- Direction [10 storey model]

BASE SHEAR
RCC COMPOSITE
STOREY NO
20 672.0263 803.3688 438.8262 525.9171
19 1575.7213 1765.7265 1109.6181 1246.2187
18 2388.2528 2494.4337 1712.7413 1796.8606
17 3114.4666 3006.849 2251.793 2190.2083
16 3759.2086 3339.1972 2730.37 2452.146
15 4327.3247 3543.131 3152.0694 2619.7246
14 4823.6609 3677.1498 3520.4882 2735.1024
13 5253.063 3794.4252 3839.2234 2836.9154
12 5620.3769 3931.7896 4111.872 2952.4135
11 5930.4485 4106.2137 4342.031 3094.7596
10 6198.2783 4330.6817 4533.2974 3266.7538
9 6426.1095 4612.925 4689.2682 3467.0838
8 6607.6377 4940.4727 4813.5405 3693.8255
7 6748.117 5306.0921 4909.7111 3943.3242
6 6852.8018 5695.0354 4981.3772 4206.7402
5 6926.9462 6082.3455 5032.1357 4468.0625
4 6975.8046 6435.6277 5065.5836 4705.866
3 7004.6311 6722.4144 5085.3179 4898.398
2 7018.6801 6919.1635 5094.9357 5029.9044
1 7023.3786 7022.1239 5098.1232 5097.9131
0 7023.3786 7022.1239 5098.1232 5097.9131
EQY - RCC
RSPY - RCC
20 EQY- Composite
RSPY-Composite
15
Storey no's
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Base shear (kN)

BASE SHEAR
RCC COMPOSITE
STOREY NO
30 523.644 704.0819 312.3003 445.8259
29 1237.8574 1585.6227 811.512 1095.8982
28 1904.171 2317.816 1277.2433 1631.5972
27 2524.2473 2902.3387 1710.6562 2054.6894
26 3099.7488 3346.5926 2112.9129 2370.7496
25 3632.3379 3664.3915 2485.1752 2589.7296
24 4123.6772 3875.7351 2828.6052 2725.8586
23 4575.429 4005.637 3144.3649 2797.046
22 4989.2559 4081.8641 3433.6163 2823.6502
21 5366.8202 4131.6842 3697.5214 2826.5822
20 5716.1082 4179.4254 3937.2422 2824.8991
19 6038.7626 4243.8113 4153.9408 2833.4177
18 6328.868 4331.6127 4348.779 2861.225
17 6588.1547 4442.7717 4522.919 2911.8545
16 6818.3527 4573.3157 4677.5228 2985.1301
15 7021.1923 4719.3476 4813.7523 3079.7663
14 7198.4036 4879.8975 4932.7696 3195.4701
13 7351.7169 5057.7769 5035.7366 3333.6786
12 7482.8623 5258.3269 5123.8155 3496.7744
11 7593.57 5486.6851 5198.1681 3686.2766
10 7689.9049 5757.9652 5259.9565 3900.8928
9 7772.553 6076.8732 5310.3426 4135.3085
8 7838.4042 6418.1544 5350.4887 4380.1799
7 7889.3645 6763.8531 5381.5565 4623.2454
6 7927.3399 7093.576 5404.7081 4851.1154
5 7954.2366 7387.6229 5421.1056 5051.2428
4 7971.9605 7629.8195 5431.9109 5213.7187
3 7982.4176 7809.7517 5438.286 5332.6792
2 7987.514 7924.3394 5441.3931 5407.2804
1 7989.2347 7980.7491 5442.4302 5443.2019
0 7989.2347 7980.7491 5442.4302 5443.2019
EQY - RCC
30 RSPY - RCC
EQY- Composite
RSPY-Composite
25
20
Storey no's
15
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Base shear (kN)

6.3 Lateral load for RCC and composite building
The Table 6.7,Table 6.8 and Table 6.9 shows the Lateral load for buildings in X
direction and Table 6.10,Table 6.11 and Table 6.12 shows the lateral load for
buildings in Y direction . The lateral load are shown for equivalent static analysis
(ESA) and response spectrum analysis (RSA) for the buildings.
Table 6.7: Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For X- Direction [10 storey
model]
RCC Composite
Storey no
EQX- Displac- RSPX- Displac- EQX- Displac- RSPX- Displac-
RCC ement RCC ement Composite ement Composite ement
storey10 1347.17 26.6 1183.115 23.1 899.5761 21.8 782.4221 19.2
storey9 1634.23 23.5 1412.488 20.5 1236.373 19.2 1073.019 16.9
storey8 1302.10 20.3 1097.222 17.7 985.1006 16.5 846.6819 14.6
storey7 1007.66 17 862.7328 14.9 762.3406 13.8 670.2168 12.3
storey6 750.906 13.8 708.0824 12.1 568.0938 11.1 545.672 10
storey5 531.839 10.6 599.1457 9.4 402.3603 8.6 453.6871 7.7
storey4 350.462 7.7 507.2399 6.9 265.1401 6.2 375.5614 5.6
storey3 206.773 5.1 415.9477 4.6 156.4332 4.1 299.2835 3.7
storey2 100.773 2.9 306.5139 2.6 76.2396 2.3 213.3965 2.1
storey1 33.3522 1.2 173.0082 1.1 25.2053 0.9 116.4841 0.9
Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 6.7: Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For X- Direction [10 storey
model]

Table 6.8: : Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For X- Direction [20 storey
model]
RCC Composite
Storey no
storey20 754.444 115.4 945.6927 72.6 492.6445 103.8 617.5354 68
storey19 1014.52 108.6 1115.46 68.2 753.0588 97.6 833.7175 64
storey18 912.181 101.6 824.6852 63.8 677.0912 91.4 623.5674 59.9
storey17 815.277 94.5 556.6497 59.4 605.1617 85 429.5422 55.7
storey16 723.814 87.3 334.3336 55 537.2704 78.5 268.0805 51.6
storey15 637.790 80.1 177.083 50.5 473.4173 72.1 153.1272 47.4
storey14 557.207 72.8 94.2427 46.1 413.6022 65.6 91.5286 43.2
storey13 482.064 65.6 80.0771 41.7 357.8254 59.1 79.4625 39.1
storey12 412.361 58.4 114.1419 37.3 306.0866 52.6 102.7379 34.9
storey11 348.099 51.3 170.4106 33 258.3861 46.3 143.1125 30.9
storey10 300.676 44.4 241.3389 28.8 214.7236 40.1 186.9656 26.9
storey9 255.772 37.9 321.3874 24.8 175.0993 34.1 228.8812 23.1
storey8 203.791 31.5 386.9785 20.9 139.5132 28.3 267.843 19.4
storey7 157.708 25.6 441.8333 17.2 107.9652 22.9 301.0529 15.8
storey6 117.523 20 475.4849 13.7 80.4553 17.9 321.2843 12.5
storey5 83.2376 15 474.7832 10.4 56.9836 13.3 319.386 9.4
storey4 54.8504 10.5 431.3278 7.5 37.55 9.3 289.2779 6.7
storey3 32.3619 6.7 346.8139 4.9 22.1546 5.9 231.82 4.3
storey2 15.7719 3.7 234.2938 2.7 10.7973 3.2 155.8089 2.4
storey1 5.2748 1.4 119.4137 1.1 3.5785 1.2 78.4562 1
base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 6.8: : Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For X- Direction [20 storey
model]

Table 6.9: Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For X- Direction [30 storey
model]
RCC Composite
Storey no
storey30 586.218 157.6 863.278 99 349.6192 203.9 547.5089 115.6
storey29 799.559 152.4 1043.085 95.7 558.8659 196.4 771.3159 111.3
storey28 745.936 147.2 824.3383 92.4 521.3847 188.7 605.3852 106.9
storey27 694.173 141.7 618.1728 89 485.2045 181 448.1067 102.5
storey26 644.272 136.2 439.0795 85.5 450.3251 173.2 309.2998 98.1
storey25 596.232 130.5 299.1735 82 416.7465 165.3 197.4446 93.6
storey24 550.052 124.6 204.2505 78.4 384.4688 157.2 117.213 89.1
storey23 505.734 118.6 151.275 74.8 353.492 149.1 67.8361 84.6
storey22 463.278 112.4 128.8461 71.1 323.816 140.9 43.0404 80.1
storey21 422.682 106.2 121.6722 67.4 295.4409 132.6 33.3685 75.6
storey20 391.026 99.8 119.6936 63.6 268.3667 124.2 30.2169 71.1
storey19 361.210 93.4 118.0173 59.9 242.5933 115.8 29.3452 66.5
storey18 324.772 86.9 113.3796 56.1 218.1208 107.4 31.6989 62
storey17 290.270 80.4 113.9293 52.3 194.9492 99.1 41.2349 57.5
storey16 257.706 73.9 124.5872 48.5 173.0784 90.7 61.2052 53
storey15 227.078 67.4 145.5977 44.6 152.5085 82.5 91.0844 48.5
storey14 198.387 61 172.2436 40.8 133.2395 74.4 126.0607 44.1
storey13 171.633 54.7 197.8354 37 115.2713 66.4 159.5128 39.8
storey12 146.816 48.6 217.7775 33.2 98.604 58.6 186.6421 35.5
storey11 123.936 42.6 231.9724 29.5 83.2375 51.1 206.561 31.3
storey10 107.846 36.8 256.8732 25.8 69.1719 43.9 221.619 27.2
storey9 92.5243 31.3 292.1809 22.3 56.4072 37.1 234.8109 23.2
storey8 73.7202 26.1 317.7459 18.9 44.9433 30.6 247.0248 19.4
storey7 57.0499 21.2 340.5015 15.6 34.7803 24.6 255.7059 15.9
storey6 42.5134 16.7 351.381 12.4 25.9182 19.1 255.6441 12.5
storey5 30.1107 12.5 340.8541 9.5 18.3569 14.1 241.4199 9.4
storey4 19.8418 8.9 303.3957 6.9 12.0965 9.8 210.1767 6.7
storey3 11.7067 5.7 240.3572 4.5 7.137 6.2 163.407 4.3
storey2 5.7054 3.2 160.4544 2.6 3.4783 3.3 107.2859 2.4
1 1.9263 1.3 80.9214 1.1 1.1611 1.3 52.939 0.9
Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 6.9: : Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For X- Direction [30 storey
model]

Table 6.10: Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For Y- Direction [10 storey
model]
RCC Composite
Storey no
EQY- Displac- RSPY- Displac- EQY- Displac- RSPY- Displac-
storey10 1209.34 19.3 1030.022 16.9 815.6157 16.3 693.2803 14.4
storey9 1467.03 17.1 1258.941 15 1120.979 14.4 966.4912 12.7
storey8 1168.88 14.8 1003.444 13 893.1579 12.4 775.919 11
storey7 904.567 12.4 802.0298 11 691.1888 10.4 620.9744 9.3
storey6 674.080 10.1 657.1687 9 515.0717 8.4 505.3701 7.6
storey5 477.427 7.8 547.4 7 364.8067 6.5 416.2357 5.9
storey4 314.606 5.7 453.0078 5.2 240.3937 4.7 339.8189 4.3
storey3 185.618 3.8 361.9008 3.5 141.8328 3.1 266.6547 2.9
storey2 90.4634 2.2 260.7558 2 69.1239 1.8 187.8272 1.7
storey1 29.94 0.9 146.0829 0.9 22.8528 0.7 102.4539 0.7
Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 6.10: Comparison of Lateral Load (kN) Vs. Displacement (mm) For Y- Direction [10 storey
model]

model]
RCC Composite
Storey no
storey20 672.026 81.3 803.3688 54 438.8262 74.8 525.9171 51.3
storey19 903.695 76.5 962.3577 50.8 670.7919 70.3 720.3016 48.3
storey18 812.531 71.6 728.7072 47.5 603.1232 65.8 550.6419 45.2
storey17 726.213 66.6 512.4153 44.3 539.0516 61.2 393.3477 42.1
storey16 644.742 61.6 332.3482 41 478.577 56.6 261.9377 39
storey15 568.116 56.5 203.9338 37.7 421.6994 52 167.5786 35.8
storey14 496.336 51.4 134.0188 34.3 368.4188 47.3 115.3778 32.7
storey13 429.402 46.3 117.2754 31.1 318.7352 42.6 101.813 29.6
storey12 367.314 41.2 137.3644 27.8 272.6486 38 115.4981 26.5
storey11 310.071 36.2 174.4241 24.6 230.159 33.4 142.3461 23.4
storey10 267.829 31.4 224.468 21.5 191.2664 29 171.9942 20.4
storey9 227.831 26.8 282.2433 18.5 155.9708 24.7 200.33 17.5
storey8 181.528 22.4 327.5477 15.6 124.2722 20.6 226.7417 14.7
storey7 140.479 18.2 365.6194 12.9 96.1706 16.7 249.4987 12
storey6 104.684 14.3 388.9433 10.3 71.6661 13.1 263.416 9.5
storey5 74.1445 10.8 387.3101 7.8 50.7585 9.8 261.3223 7.2
storey4 48.8584 7.6 353.2822 5.6 33.4479 6.9 237.8035 5.1
storey3 28.8265 4.9 286.7867 3.7 19.7343 4.4 192.532 3.3
storey2 14.049 2.7 196.7491 2.1 9.6178 2.4 131.5064 1.9
storey1 4.6985 1.1 102.9604 0.9 3.1875 0.9 68.0087 0.8
base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
model]

model]
RCC Composite
Storey no
storey30 523.644 119.9 704.0819 74.1 312.3003 143.4 445.8259 83.7
storey29 714.213 115.7 881.5408 71.5 499.2117 138.2 650.0723 80.6
storey28 666.313 111.5 732.1933 68.8 465.7313 132.9 535.699 77.4
storey27 620.076 107.1 584.5227 66.1 433.413 127.4 423.0922 74.3
storey26 575.501 102.6 444.2539 63.3 402.2566 122 316.0602 71.1
storey25 532.589 98.1 317.7989 60.6 372.2623 116.4 218.98 67.8
storey24 491.339 93.4 211.3436 57.7 343.43 110.8 136.129 64.6
storey23 451.751 88.6 129.9019 54.9 315.7597 105.1 71.1874 61.4
storey22 413.827 83.8 76.2271 52.1 289.2514 99.3 26.6042 58.1
storey21 377.564 78.9 49.8201 49.2 263.9051 93.5 2.932 54.8
storey20 349.288 74 47.7412 46.3 239.7208 87.6 1.6831 51.6
storey19 322.654 69.1 64.3859 43.5 216.6985 81.7 8.5186 48.3
storey18 290.105 64.1 87.8014 40.7 194.8383 75.8 27.8073 45
storey17 259.286 59.2 111.159 37.8 174.14 69.9 50.6295 41.8
storey16 230.198 54.3 130.544 35 154.6038 64.1 73.2756 38.5
storey15 202.839 49.5 146.0319 32.2 136.2295 58.3 94.6362 35.3
storey14 177.211 44.7 160.5499 29.4 119.0173 52.6 115.7038 32.1
storey13 153.313 40 177.8794 26.7 102.967 47 138.2085 29
storey12 131.145 35.4 200.55 23.9 88.0788 41.5 163.0958 25.9
storey11 110.707 31 228.3582 21.3 74.3526 36.3 189.5022 22.9
storey10 96.3349 26.8 271.2801 18.6 61.7884 31.2 214.6162 19.9
storey9 82.6481 22.8 318.908 16.1 50.3862 26.4 234.4157 17.1
storey8 65.8512 19 341.2812 13.7 40.146 21.8 244.8714 14.3
storey7 50.9603 15.5 345.6987 11.3 31.0678 17.6 243.0655 11.7
storey6 37.9755 12.2 329.7229 9.1 23.1516 13.7 227.87 9.3
storey5 26.8967 9.2 294.0469 7 16.3975 10.2 200.1274 7
storey4 17.7239 6.5 242.1966 5.1 10.8053 7.1 162.4759 5
storey3 10.4571 4.3 179.9322 3.4 6.3752 4.5 118.9605 3.2
storey2 5.0964 2.4 114.5877 2 3.107 2.4 74.6012 1.8
storey1 1.7207 1 56.4097 0.8 1.0371 1 35.9215 0.7
Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
model]

6.4 Nodal displacement for RCC and composite building

The Table 6.13,Table 6.14 and Table 6.15 shows the nodal displacement for buildings in
X direction and Table 6.16, Table 6.17 and Table 6.18 shows the nodal displacement for
buildings in Y direction . The nodal displacement are shown for equivalent static analysis
Table 6.13: Comparison of Storey no Vs. Displacement (mm) For X- Direction [10 storey model]
RCC Composite
Storey no
Displacement- Displacement- Displacement- Displacement -
RCC RCC(rspx) Composite Composite(rspx)
(Eqx) (Eqx)
10 26.6 23.1 21.8 19.2
9 23.5 20.5 19.2 16.9
8 20.3 17.7 16.5 14.6
7 17 14.9 13.8 12.3
6 13.8 12.1 11.1 10
5 10.6 9.4 8.6 7.7
4 7.7 6.9 6.2 5.6
3 5.1 4.6 4.1 3.7
2 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.1
1 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9
0 0 0 0 0
Figure 6.13: Comparison of Storey no Vs. Displacement (mm) For X- Direction [10 storey model]

RCC Composite
Storey no
(Eqx) (Eqx)
20 115.4 72.6 103.8 68
19 108.6 68.2 97.6 64
18 101.6 63.8 91.4 59.9
17 94.5 59.4 85 55.7
16 87.3 55 78.5 51.6
15 80.1 50.5 72.1 47.4
14 72.8 46.1 65.6 43.2
13 65.6 41.7 59.1 39.1
12 58.4 37.3 52.6 34.9
11 51.3 33 46.3 30.9
10 44.4 28.8 40.1 26.9
9 37.9 24.8 34.1 23.1
8 31.5 20.9 28.3 19.4
7 25.6 17.2 22.9 15.8
6 20 13.7 17.9 12.5
5 15 10.4 13.3 9.4
4 10.5 7.5 9.3 6.7
3 6.7 4.9 5.9 4.3
2 3.7 2.7 3.2 2.4
1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1
0 0 0 0 0

RCC Composite
Storey no
(Eqx) (Eqx)
30 157.6 99 203.9 115.6
29 152.4 95.7 196.4 111.3
28 147.2 92.4 188.7 106.9
27 141.7 89 181 102.5
26 136.2 85.5 173.2 98.1
25 130.5 82 165.3 93.6
24 124.6 78.4 157.2 89.1
23 118.6 74.8 149.1 84.6
22 112.4 71.1 140.9 80.1
21 106.2 67.4 132.6 75.6
20 99.8 63.6 124.2 71.1
19 93.4 59.9 115.8 66.5
18 86.9 56.1 107.4 62
17 80.4 52.3 99.1 57.5
16 73.9 48.5 90.7 53
15 67.4 44.6 82.5 48.5
14 61 40.8 74.4 44.1
13 54.7 37 66.4 39.8
12 48.6 33.2 58.6 35.5
11 42.6 29.5 51.1 31.3
10 36.8 25.8 43.9 27.2
9 31.3 22.3 37.1 23.2
8 26.1 18.9 30.6 19.4
7 21.2 15.6 24.6 15.9
6 16.7 12.4 19.1 12.5
5 12.5 9.5 14.1 9.4
4 8.9 6.9 9.8 6.7
3 5.7 4.5 6.2 4.3
2 3.2 2.6 3.3 2.4
1 1.3 1.1 1.3 0.9
0 0 0 0 0

Table 6.16: Comparison of Storey no Vs. Displacement (mm) For Y- Direction [10 storey model]
RCC Composite
Storey no
RCC RCC(rspy) Composite Composite(rspy)
(Eqy) (Eqy)
10 19.3 16.9 16.3 14.4
9 17.1 15 14.4 12.7
8 14.8 13 12.4 11
7 12.4 11 10.4 9.3
6 10.1 9 8.4 7.6
5 7.8 7 6.5 5.9
4 5.7 5.2 4.7 4.3
3 3.8 3.5 3.1 2.9
2 2.2 2 1.8 1.7
1 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7
0 0 0 0 0
Figure 6.16: Comparison of Storey no Vs. Displacement (mm) For Y- Direction [10 storey model]

RCC Composite
Storey no
(Eqy) (Eqy)
20 81.3 54 74.8 51.3
19 76.5 50.8 70.3 48.3
18 71.6 47.5 65.8 45.2
17 66.6 44.3 61.2 42.1
16 61.6 41 56.6 39
15 56.5 37.7 52 35.8
14 51.4 34.3 47.3 32.7
13 46.3 31.1 42.6 29.6
12 41.2 27.8 38 26.5
11 36.2 24.6 33.4 23.4
10 31.4 21.5 29 20.4
9 26.8 18.5 24.7 17.5
8 22.4 15.6 20.6 14.7
7 18.2 12.9 16.7 12
6 14.3 10.3 13.1 9.5
5 10.8 7.8 9.8 7.2
4 7.6 5.6 6.9 5.1
3 4.9 3.7 4.4 3.3
2 2.7 2.1 2.4 1.9
1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8
0 0 0 0 0

RCC Composite
Storey no
(Eqy) (Eqy)
30 119.9 74.1 143.4 83.7
29 115.7 71.5 138.2 80.6
28 111.5 68.8 132.9 77.4
27 107.1 66.1 127.4 74.3
26 102.6 63.3 122 71.1
25 98.1 60.6 116.4 67.8
24 93.4 57.7 110.8 64.6
23 88.6 54.9 105.1 61.4
22 83.8 52.1 99.3 58.1
21 78.9 49.2 93.5 54.8
20 74 46.3 87.6 51.6
19 69.1 43.5 81.7 48.3
18 64.1 40.7 75.8 45
17 59.2 37.8 69.9 41.8
16 54.3 35 64.1 38.5
15 49.5 32.2 58.3 35.3
14 44.7 29.4 52.6 32.1
13 40 26.7 47 29
12 35.4 23.9 41.5 25.9
11 31 21.3 36.3 22.9
10 26.8 18.6 31.2 19.9
9 22.8 16.1 26.4 17.1
8 19 13.7 21.8 14.3
7 15.5 11.3 17.6 11.7
6 12.2 9.1 13.7 9.3
5 9.2 7 10.2 7
4 6.5 5.1 7.1 5
3 4.3 3.4 4.5 3.2
2 2.4 2 2.4 1.8
1 1 0.8 1 0.7
0 0 0 0 0

6.5 Lateral load for RCC and composite building
The Table 6.19,Table 6.20 and Table 6.21 shows the Lateral load for buildings in
X direction and Table 6.22, Table 6.23 and Table 6.24 shows the Lateral load for
buildings in Y direction . The lateral load are shown for equivalent static analysis
Table 6.19: Comparison of Storey no Vs. Lateral load (kN) For X- Direction [10 storey model]
RCC Composite
Storey no
Static Dynamic Static Dynamic RSPX-
EQX-RCC RSPX -RCC EQX-composite Composite
10 1347.1795 1183.115 899.5761 782.4221
9 1634.2387 1412.4883 1236.3739 1073.0196
8 1302.1057 1097.2226 985.1006 846.6819
7 1007.6615 862.7328 762.3406 670.2168
6 750.9062 708.0824 568.0938 545.672
5 531.8398 599.1457 402.3603 453.6871
4 350.4622 507.2399 265.1401 375.5614
3 206.7734 415.9477 156.4332 299.2835
2 100.7735 306.5139 76.2396 213.3965
1 33.3522 173.0082 25.2053 116.4841
0 0 0 0 0
Figure 6.19: Comparison of Storey no Vs. Lateral load (kN) For X- Direction [10 storey model]

RCC Composite
Storey no
20 754.4447 945.6927 492.6445 617.5354
19 1014.5257 1115.4643 753.0588 833.7175
18 912.1817 824.6852 677.0912 623.5674
17 815.2778 556.6497 605.1617 429.5422
16 723.8142 334.3336 537.2704 268.0805
15 637.7908 177.083 473.4173 153.1272
14 557.2076 94.2427 413.6022 91.5286
13 482.0647 80.0771 357.8254 79.4625
12 412.3619 114.1419 306.0866 102.7379
11 348.0994 170.4106 258.3861 143.1125
10 300.6768 241.3389 214.7236 186.9656
9 255.7729 321.3874 175.0993 228.8812
8 203.7911 386.9785 139.5132 267.843
7 157.708 441.8333 107.9652 301.0529
6 117.5235 475.4849 80.4553 321.2843
5 83.2376 474.7832 56.9836 319.386
4 54.8504 431.3278 37.55 289.2779
3 32.3619 346.8139 22.1546 231.82
2 15.7719 234.2938 10.7973 155.8089
1 5.2748 119.4137 3.5785 78.4562
0 0 0 0 0

RCC Composite
Storey no
30 586.218 863.278 349.6192 547.5089
29 799.5598 1043.0858 558.8659 771.3159
28 745.9361 824.3383 521.3847 605.3852
27 694.1736 618.1728 485.2045 448.1067
26 644.2723 439.0795 450.3251 309.2998
25 596.232 299.1735 416.7465 197.4446
24 550.0529 204.2505 384.4688 117.213
23 505.7349 151.275 353.492 67.8361
22 463.278 128.8461 323.816 43.0404
21 422.6822 121.6722 295.4409 33.3685
20 391.0269 119.6936 268.3667 30.2169
19 361.2107 118.0173 242.5933 29.3452
18 324.7722 113.3796 218.1208 31.6989
17 290.2707 113.9293 194.9492 41.2349
16 257.706 124.5872 173.0784 61.2052
15 227.0784 145.5977 152.5085 91.0844
14 198.3876 172.2436 133.2395 126.0607
13 171.6338 197.8354 115.2713 159.5128
12 146.8169 217.7775 98.604 186.6421
11 123.9369 231.9724 83.2375 206.561
10 107.8466 256.8732 69.1719 221.619
9 92.5243 292.1809 56.4072 234.8109
8 73.7202 317.7459 44.9433 247.0248
7 57.0499 340.5015 34.7803 255.7059
6 42.5134 351.381 25.9182 255.6441
5 30.1107 340.8541 18.3569 241.4199
4 19.8418 303.3957 12.0965 210.1767
3 11.7067 240.3572 7.137 163.407
2 5.7054 160.4544 3.4783 107.2859
1 1.9263 80.9214 1.1611 52.939
0 0 0 0 0

Table 6.22: Comparison of Storey no Vs. Lateral load (kN) For Y- Direction [10 storey model]
RCC Composite
Storey no
Static Dynamic Static Dynamic RSPY-
EQY-RCC RSPY -RCC EQY-composite Composite
10 1209.3492 1030.0223 815.6157 693.2803
9 1467.0394 1258.9412 1120.979 966.4912
8 1168.887 1003.4443 893.1579 775.919
7 904.5675 802.0298 691.1888 620.9744
6 674.0808 657.1687 515.0717 505.3701
5 477.4271 547.4 364.8067 416.2357
4 314.6063 453.0078 240.3937 339.8189
3 185.6184 361.9008 141.8328 266.6547
2 90.4634 260.7558 69.1239 187.8272
1 29.94 146.0829 22.8528 102.4539
0 0 0 0 0
Figure 6.22: Comparison of Storey no Vs. Lateral load (kN) For Y- Direction [10 storey model]

RCC Composite
Storey no
20 672.0264 803.3688 438.8262 525.9171
19 903.6952 962.3577 670.7919 720.3016
18 812.5316 728.7072 603.1232 550.6419
17 726.2139 512.4153 539.0516 393.3477
16 644.7421 332.3482 478.577 261.9377
15 568.1162 203.9338 421.6994 167.5786
14 496.3362 134.0188 368.4188 115.3778
13 429.4021 117.2754 318.7352 101.813
12 367.314 137.3644 272.6486 115.4981
11 310.0717 174.4241 230.159 142.3461
10 267.8298 224.468 191.2664 171.9942
9 227.8313 282.2433 155.9708 200.33
8 181.5282 327.5477 124.2722 226.7417
7 140.4794 365.6194 96.1706 249.4987
6 104.6848 388.9433 71.6661 263.416
5 74.1445 387.3101 50.7585 261.3223
4 48.8584 353.2822 33.4479 237.8035
3 28.8265 286.7867 19.7343 192.532
2 14.049 196.7491 9.6178 131.5064
1 4.6985 102.9604 3.1875 68.0087
0 0 0 0 0

RCC Composite
Storey no
30 523.6442 704.0819 312.3003 445.8259
29 714.2135 881.5408 499.2117 650.0723
28 666.3137 732.1933 465.7313 535.699
27 620.0764 584.5227 433.413 423.0922
26 575.5016 444.2539 402.2566 316.0602
25 532.5893 317.7989 372.2623 218.98
24 491.3394 211.3436 343.43 136.129
23 451.7519 129.9019 315.7597 71.1874
22 413.827 76.2271 289.2514 26.6042
21 377.5645 49.8201 263.9051 2.932
20 349.2881 47.7412 239.7208 1.6831
19 322.6545 64.3859 216.6985 8.5186
18 290.1055 87.8014 194.8383 27.8073
17 259.2867 111.159 174.14 50.6295
16 230.1981 130.544 154.6038 73.2756
15 202.8397 146.0319 136.2295 94.6362
14 177.2114 160.5499 119.0173 115.7038
13 153.3133 177.8794 102.967 138.2085
12 131.1454 200.55 88.0788 163.0958
11 110.7077 228.3582 74.3526 189.5022
10 96.3349 271.2801 61.7884 214.6162
9 82.6481 318.908 50.3862 234.4157
8 65.8512 341.2812 40.146 244.8714
7 50.9603 345.6987 31.0678 243.0655
6 37.9755 329.7229 23.1516 227.87
5 26.8967 294.0469 16.3975 200.1274
4 17.7239 242.1966 10.8053 162.4759
3 10.4571 179.9322 6.3752 118.9605
2 5.0964 114.5877 3.107 74.6012
1 1.7207 56.4097 1.0371 35.9215
0 0 0 0 0

6.6 Natural period for RCC and composite structure
The natural period for composite and RCC structure is referred in a table 6.25.
The Bar graph shows in Fig. 6.25 which shows maximum natural period in
Composite and RCC structures.
Table 6.25: Comparison of Time period (sec) Vs. Storey no For RCC and Composite
Time period
RCC composite
10 storey 20 storey 30 storey 10 storey 20 storey 30 storey
0.691 1.902 2.757 0.612 1.825 3.146
0.682 1.693 2.521 0.598 1.642 2.795
0.615 1.28 1.806 0.558 1.153 1.692
0.231 0.444 0.758 0.2 0.391 0.725
0.157 0.441 0.686 0.137 0.384 0.649
0.147 0.401 0.629 0.129 0.356 0.563
0.139 0.261 0.378 0.121 0.231 0.337
0.1 0.191 0.346 0.088 0.166 0.305
0.079 0.188 0.314 0.07 0.165 0.277
0.073 0.176 0.265 0.064 0.154 0.24
0.07 0.145 0.206 0.061 0.129 0.185
0.066 0.119 0.204 0.059 0.106 0.175
Figure 6.25: Comparison of Time period (sec) Vs. Storey no For RCC and Composite

6.6.1 Time period for RCC and composite
approximate fundamental natural period of vibration ( T a) , in seconds, of RCC

and composite model with brick in ll panels is estimated by IS 1893 (Part 1) :
2002 empirical expression :
T= 0:09h a
p
d
The Table no. 6.26 and Table no. 6.27 gives the approximate fundamental
natural period is compared with etab 13 software natural period.
Table 6.26: Comparison of Time period (sec) Vs. Storey no For X-Direction [Approximate ,RCC
and Composite]
Time period
storey
Approx.- X RCC- X Composite - X
10 0.542 0.691 0.612
20 1.068 1.902 1.825
30 1.593 2.757 3.146
Figure 6.26: Comparison of Time period (sec) Vs. Storey no For X-Direction [Approximate ,RCC
and Composite]
Table 6.27: Comparison of Time period (sec) Vs. Storey no For Y-Direction [Approximate ,RCC
and Composite]
Time period
storey
Static- Y RCC- Y Composite - Y
10 0.606 0.682 0.598
20 1.194 1.693 1.642
30 1.782 2.521 2.795

Figure 6.27: Comparison of Time period (sec) Vs. Storey no For X-Direction [Approximate ,RCC
and Composite]
6.7 Weight of RCC and composite structure

The total weight for composite and RCC structure is referred in a table 6.28. The Bar
graph as shown in g 6.28 shows the total weight for Composite and RCC structures.
Table 6.28: Comparison of Total weight (kN) Vs. Model For RCC and Composite.
Model RCC composite
10 87435.15 67633.16
20 183524.4 139125
30 309387.15 219813.8
Figure 6.28: Comparison of Total weight (kN) Vs. Model For RCC and Composite.

6.8 Axial forces for Composite and RCC structures
The axial forces for composite and RCC structure is referred in a table 6.29 and
table 6.30 and table 6.31. The Bar graph shows the maximum axial forces in
Table 6.29: Comparison of Axial Force (kN) Vs. Model For Corner column
Column axial force
RCC COMPOSITE
Model
Corner column (C1) - RCC Corner column (C1)- Composite
10 storey 1644.889 1241.012
20 storey 4045.45 2941.7463
30 storey 8470.09 5029.76
Figure 6.29: Comparison of Axial Force (kN) Vs. Model For Corner column
Table 6.30: Comparison of Axial Force (kN) Vs. Model For Exterior Column
RCC COMPOSITE
Model
Exterior Column (C2)-RCC Exterior Column (C2)-Composite
10 storey 2186.9005 1682.4829
20 storey 4870.312 3545.44
30 storey 8625.41 5767.2

Figure 6.30: Comparison of Axial Force (kN) Vs. Model For Exterior Column
Table 6.31: Comparison of Axial Force (kN) Vs. Model For Interior Column
RCC COMPOSITE
Model
Interior Column (C8)-RCC Interior Column (C8)- Composite
10 storey 3403.9402 2418.71
20 storey 6450.64 4620.83
30 storey 10073.79 7358.95
Figure 6.31: Comparison of Axial Force (kN) Vs. Model For Exterior Column

6.9 Bending moments for Composite and RCC structures
The bending moments for composite and RCC structure is referred in a table
6.32. The Bar graph shows in Fig. 6.32 and g. 6.33 which shows maximum
bending moment in Composite and RCC structures.
Table 6.32: Comparison of Bending moment(kN-m) Vs. Model

Bending moment (kN-m)
RCC Composite
Model
BM in X-B37 BM in Y - B1 BM in X-B37 BM in Y -B1
(RCC) (RCC) (Composite) (Composite)
10 storey 89.5832 41.53 76.06 28.87
20 storey 97.61 58.36 71.24 33.93
30 storey 133.94 88.52 72.904 37.8
Figure 6.32: Comparison of Bending moment(kN-m) Vs. Model for X-Direction
Figure 6.33: Comparison of Bending moment(kN-m) Vs. Model for Y-Direction

6.10 Shear force for Composite and RCC structures
The shear force for composite and RCC structure is referred in a table 6.33. The
Bar graph shows in Fig. 6.34 and g. 6.35 which shows maximum shear force in
Table 6.33: Comparison of Shear force(kN) Vs. Model

Shear force (kN)
RCC Composite
Model
SF in X-B37 SF in Y - B1 SF in X-B37 SF in Y -B1
(RCC) (RCC) (Composite) (Composite)
10 storey 93.92 52.49 68.61 53.09
20 storey 89.72 59.55 65.25 49.13
30 storey 101.11 84.82 63.71 35.05
Figure 6.34: Comparison of Shear force (kN) Vs. Model For X- Direction
Figure 6.35: Comparison of Shear force (kN) Vs. Model For Y- Direction

6.11 Discussions
Design Base Shear
Form the Table 6.1 to Table 6.6 change in design base shear for composite and
rcc building is calculated in terms of percentage (%) and is compared to models
storey no.
10 storey models for RCC and composite building
Table 6.1 shows comparison between equivalent static analysis (ESA)

method, the design base shear (EQX-composite) are decreased by 26% in
composite structure as compared to (EQX-RCC) R.C.C framed structure. Table
6.4 shows that design base shear (EQY-composite) are decreased by 25.25% in
composite structure as compared to (EQY-RCC) R.C.C framed structure.
Table 6.2 represent comparison between the design base shear (EQX-
composite) are decreased by 27.41% in composite structure as compared to
(EQX-RCC) R.C.C framed structure. Table 6.5 represent that design base shear
(EQY-composite) are de-creased by 27.41% in composite structure as compared
to (EQY-RCC) R.C.C framed structure.
Table 6.3 represent comparison between the design base shear (EQX-
composite) are decreased by 31.87% in composite structure as compared to
(EQX-RCC) R.C.C framed structure. Table 6.6 represent that design base shear
(EQY-composite) are de-creased by 31.87% in composite structure as compared
to (EQY-RCC) R.C.C framed structure.
Thus, the results shows that the base shear obtained from equivalent static analysis
(ESA) method increases as number of storeys increases in RCC and the base shear
decreases by using composite structure. From response spectrum analysis (RSA)
method it was observed that there is a small variation in nature base shear graphs.
Lateral load for RCC and composite building

Table 6.7 represent comparison between the lateral load vs. displacement (EQX-
composite) are decreased by 33.22% in composite structure as compared to (EQX-
RCC) R.C.C framed structure. where as displacement for composite structure is

decreased by 18.04% as compared to RCC model displacement. Same way for

(RSPX-composite) are decreased by 33.86% in composite structure as compared
to (RSPX-RCC) R.C.C framed structure. And displacement due to response
spectrum for com-posite structure is decreased by 16.83% as compared to RCC
response spectrum model displacement.
Table 6.10 represent comparison between the lateral load vs. displacement
(EQY-composite) are decreased by 32.55% in composite structure as compared
to (EQY-RCC) R.C.C framed structure. where as displacement for composite
structure is decreased by 15.54% as compared to RCC model displacement.
Same way for (RSPY-composite) are decreased by 32.69% in composite
structure as compared to (RSPY-RCC) R.C.C framed structure. And
displacement due to response spectrum for com-posite structure is decreased by
14.79% as compared to RCC response spectrum model displacement.
(EQX-composite) are decreased by 34.70% in composite structure as compared
to (EQX-RCC) R.C.C framed structure. where as displacement for composite
structure is decreased by 10.05% as compared to RCC model displacement.
Same way for (RSPX-composite) are decreased by 34.70% in composite
structure as compared to (RSPX-RCC) R.C.C framed structure. And
displacement due to response spectrum for com-posite structure is decreased by
structure is decreased by 8% as compared to RCC model displacement. Same
way for (RSPY-composite) are decreased by 34.53% in composite structure as
compared to (RSPY-RCC) R.C.C framed structure. And displacement due to
response spectrum for com-posite structure is decreased by 5% as compared to
RCC response spectrum model displacement.
Table 6.9 represent comparison between the lateral load vs. displacement (EQX-
composite) are decreased by 40.36% in composite structure as compared to (EQX-RCC)
R.C.C framed structure. where as displacement for composite structure is increased by
29.37% as compared to RCC model displacement. Same way for (RSPX-composite) are
decreased by 36.57% in composite structure as compared to (RSPX-

RCC) R.C.C framed structure. And displacement due to response spectrum for
com-posite structure is increased by 16.76% as compared to RCC response
spectrum model displacement.
structure is increased by 19.59% as compared to RCC model displacement.
Same way for (RSPY-composite) are decreased by 36.68% in composite
structure as compared to (RSPY-RCC) R.C.C framed structure. And
displacement due to response spectrum for com-posite structure is increased by
Nodal displacement
Table 6.13 and table 6.16 represent comparison between the nodal
displacement vs No. of storey. Displacements in X and Y direction for composite
buildings are lower than that of RCC buildings by 18.04%, 16.88% in X direction
15.54% and 14.79% in Y direction respectively.
buildings are lower than that of RCC buildings by 10.05%, 6.33% in X direction
7.99% and 5% in Y direction respectively.
buildings are higher than that of RCC buildings by 29.37%, 16.76% in X direction
19.59% and 12.95% in Y direction respectively.
From table 6.13 to table 6.15 it is clearly observed that, node displacements in
composite structure is less compared to RCC structure for 10 storey and 20
storey and node displacements in composite structure is more compared to RCC
structure for 30 storey. This is because, composite structure is more exible as
compared to RCC structure. The beam de ection is also more in composite beam
as compared to RCC beam.

Lateral load
Table 6.19 and table 6.22 represent comparison between the storey no. vs
lateral load. Lateral load in X and Y direction for composite buildings are lower
than that of RCC buildings by 33.22%, 33.86% in X direction 32.55% and 32.69%
in Y direction respectively.
Time period
Table 6.26 and table 6.27 represent comparison between time period for RCC and
composite building. Natural period in X and Y direction for 10 storey , 20 storey
composite buildings are lower than that of RCC buildings by 11.43%, 4.04% and for
30 storey 14.10% higher than RCC in X direction. similarly 12.31% , 3.01% lower
than RCC and for 30 storey 10.86% higher than RCC in Y direction respectively.
Weight of building
The total weight for composite and RCC structure is referred in a table 6.28.
The Bar graph as shown in g 6.28 shows the total weight for Composite and RCC
structures.Total weight of building for 10 storey , 20 storey and 30 storey
composite buildings are lower than that of RCC buildings by 22.64%, 24.19% and
for 30 storey 28.95% respectively.

Maximum Axial Forces

Axial force on corner column
From table 6.29 it is clear that for 10 storey , 20 storey and 30 storey building the
axial forces on corner composite column is reduced by 24.55%, 27.28% and for 30
storey 40.61% than that of RCC corner column respectively.
Axial force on exterior column
axial forces on exterior composite column is reduced by 23.06%, 27.20% and for 30
storey 33.13% than that of RCC exterior column respectively.
Axial force on interior column
axial forces on interior composite column is reduced by 28.94%, 28.36% and for 30
storey 26.94% than that of RCC interior column respectively.
Bending moment
From table 6.32 it is clear that for 10 storey , 20 storey and 30 storey building
the bending moment on B37 beam is reduced by 15.09%, 27.01% and for 30 storey
45.57% than that of RCC beam. similarly for B1 beam is reduced by 30.48%, 41.86%
and 57.29% than that of RCC beam respectively.
Shear force
shear force on B37 beam is reduced by 26.94%, 27.27% and for 30 storey 36.98% than
that of RCC beam. similarly for B1 beam is increased by 1.14% and decreased by
17.49% and 58.67% than that of RCC beam respectively.
From table 6.32 and table 6.33 it is clear that the maximum shear force and max-
imum bending moment in composite beam is less compared to RCC beam. This is
because, the dead load of composite sections is less, as compared to RCC sections.
Also the sti ness of the composite sections is less as compared to RCC sections,
thus less bending moment is transferred to the beam from the beam-column joint.

Chapter 7
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK
7.1 General
In this study, the comparative study of RCC and Composite multistoreyed build-
ing is presented. The parameter considered are base shear,lateral load, node dis-
placement,natural period, maximum shear force in beam, axial force in column and
maximum bending moment in beam is considered. Thus based on the analysis
results discussed in the previous chapter following conclusions drawn.
7.2 ABOUT PRESENT STUDY
Based on the work presented in this thesis following point-wise conclusions can
be drawn:
1. As the results show the composite option is better than R.C.C. Because
Compos-ite option for high rise building is best suited.Weight of composite
structure is quite low as compared to RCC structure which helps in reducing
the foundation cost.
2. The reduction in the total weight of the Composite framed structure for 10
storey, 20 storey and 30 storey are 22.64%, 24.19% and 28.95% with
respect to R.C.C. frame Structure. As the dead weight of a composite
structure is less compared to an R.C.C. structure, it is subjected to less
amount of forces induced due to the earthquake.
3. It is clear that the nodal displacements in a composite structure, by both the

methods of seismic analysis, compared to an R.C.C. structure in all the three
83
global directions are less which is due to the higher sti ness of members in a
composite structure compared to an RCC structure.
4. As the sizes of the column members from R.C.C option to the composite option
reduces about 43.75%, 55.55% and 43.75% for 10 storey, 20 storey and 30 storey.
5. Bending moments in main beams in composite structure are reduced by

15.09%, 27.01% and 45.57% as compared to R.C.C. framed structure. In
case of a com-posite structural system, because of the lesser magnitude of
the beam end forces and moments compared to an RCC system , one can
use lighter sections in a composite structure. Thus, it reduces the self-weight
and cost of the structural components.
6. Axial forces in column have been reduced by average 24.55%, 27.28% and
40.61% in Composite framed structure as compared to R.C.C. framed structure.
7. In all the options the story displacements are within the permissible limits as
per code limits.
8. Composite structures are more economical than that of RCC structure.

Compos-ite structures are the best solution for high rise structure as
compared to RCC structure. Speedy construction facilitates quicker return
on the invested capital and bene ts in terms of rent.
9. The maximum shear force in composite beam is less compared to RCC beam.
7.3 Scope For Future Study
The study may further be carried out by Comparison of Response Spectrum

Analysis and Time History Analysis can be carried out.
The study may be undertaken considering composite column.
Semi analytical study should be carried out to realize the behavior of RCC
and Composite elements.
The study may be taken to compare the deck slab for composite and RCC
slab for RCC structure.

Bibliography
[1] D. R. Panchal, P. M. Marathe, \Comparative Study of R.C.C, Steel and Com-

posite (G+30 Storey) Building", Institute Of Technology, Nirma University,
Ahmedabad-382481, December, 2011, pp. 08-10.
[2] Anish N. Shah, Dr. P. S. Pajgade, \Comparison Of RCC and Composite Multisto-
ried Buildings", International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
(IJERA), ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol.3, Issue 2, March-April 2013, pp.534-539.
[3] P. Kmiecik, M. Kaminski, \Modeling of reinforced concrete structures and

com-posite structures with concrete strength degradation taken into
consideration", Wroclaw University of Technology, Wybrzeze Wyspianskiego
Wroclaw, Poland 25, 50-370.
[4] D. R. Panchal, Dr. S. C. Patodi, \Steel-Concrete Composite Building Under Seis-mic

Forces", Applied Mechanics Department, Faculty of Technology and Engi-neering,
The M. S. University of Baroda, Vadodara and Professor, Civil Engineer-ing Dept.,
Parul Institute of Engineering & Technology, Limda Vadodara.
[5] Waldemar St. Szajna, \ Numerical Analysis of Steel-Reinforced Concrete

Com-posite Girder", University of Zielona Gora, Prof. Z. Szafrana St. 2,
Zielona Gora, Poland 65-516 (2005).
[6] Mahbuba Begum, Md. Serajus Salekin, N. M. Tauhid Belal Khan,W.

Ahmed, \Cost Analysis of Steel Concrete Composite Structures in
Bangladesh", Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC), Vol.14, No.6, 2013,
pp.935-944.
[7] Sandeep Chaudhary, Umesh Pendharkar and A. K. Nagpal, \Hybrid

Procedure for Cracking and Time-Dependent E ects In Composite Frames at
Service Load", 10.1061/(ASCE) 0733-9445(2007)133:2(166).
[8] IS 456:2000, \Indian Standard code of practice for Plain and Reinforced
concrete", Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[9] SP 16:1980, \Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS:456-1978 ", Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
85
[10] IS 800:2007, \ Indian Standard code of practice for General Construction in

steel", Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[11]IS 875(part1 to 5):1987, \Code of Practice for design loads for buildings and
structures", Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[12] IS 11384:1985, \Code of Practice for Design of Composite Structure",Bureau

of Indian Standards, New Delhi,India.
[13] SP 34:1987, \Handbook on Concrete Reinforcement and Detailing", Bureau

of Indian Standards, New Delhi,India.
[14] IS 1893(part1):2002, \Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of structures",

Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[15]Euro code 3, \Design of Steel Structures", European committee for standardiza-

tion committee European de normalization europaisches committee fur normung.
[16] Euro code 4, \Design of composite steel and concrete structures", European
com-mittee for standardization committee European de normalization
europaisches committee fur normung.
[17] R.P.Johnson, \Composite structures of steel and concrete", Volume,

Blackwell Scienti c publications, UK.1994.
[18] \Handbook of composite construction Multi-storey Buildings", INSDAG

publica-tions No.INS/PUB/022.

APPENDIX A
Introduction to ETAB 13
ETABS 2013 is the latest release of the ETABS series of computer programs.
Since development, ETABS has been used widely for structural analysis.The basic
approach for using the program is very straightforward. The user establishes grid
lines, places structural objects relative to the grid lines using joints, frames and
shells, and assigns loads and structural properties to those structural objects (for
example, a frame object can be assigned section properties; a joint object can be
assigned spring properties; a shell object can be assigned slab or deck properties).
Analysis,design, and detailing are then performed based on the structural objects
and their assignments. Results are generated in graphical or tabular form that can be
printed to a printer or to a le for use in other programs.
ETABS can also handle the largest and most complex building models,
including a wide range of nonlinear behaviors, making it the tool of choice for
structural engineers in the building industry.
The following list represents just a portion of the types of systems and
analyses that ETABS can handle easily:
Buildings with curved beams, walls and oor edges
Buildings with steel, concrete, composite or joist oor framing
Projects with multiple towers
Complex shear walls and cores with arbitrary openings
Buildings based on multiple rectangular and/or cylindrical grid systems
P-Delta analysis with static or dynamic analysis
Construction sequence loading analysis
Buildings with base isolators and dampers
Design optimization for steel and concrete frame
Foundation/support settlement Large displacement analyses

Nonlinear static pushover
87
VALIDATION
EXAMPLE 1
Equivalent Static Analysis
Problem Description
This is a 10 storey building, three-dimensional frame subjected to vertical

gravity loading. The objective is to be able to compare ETABS 2013 results with
theoretical results.
Geometry, Properties and Loading
The 10 storey building plan and elevation as shown in below image , ve by six-p
bay system. kN-m-second units are used. The modulus of elasticity is 5000 30 =
27386.13 MPa . All columns are 0.4m x 0.4 m ; all beams are 0.23x0.5 m. and
thickness of slab is 0.125m, and thickness of in ll wall is 0.15m.
Figure 7.1: The frame geometry

DATA :
Plan Area { 30m X 24m
Storey Height { 3.2m.
Depth of foundation level { 4.2m
Column Size { 400mm X 400mm
Beam Size { 230mm X 500mm
Slab thickness { 125mm
Wall Thickness { 150mm
2
Density of Concrete { 25 kN/mm
2
Density of Masonry wall { 18.5 kN/mm
LOAD CALCULATION
DEAD LOAD :
Self Weight of Columns in each oor = 0.4 x 0.4 x 3.2 x 25 x 42 = 537.6 kN
Self Weight of Columns at base = 0.4 x 0.4 x 4.2 x 25 x 42 = 705.6 kN
Self Weight of Beams in X direction = 0.23 x 0.5 x 30 x 25 x 7 = 603.75 kN
Self Weight of Beams in Y direction = 0.23 x 0.5 x 24 x 25 x 6 = 414 kN
Self Weight of Slab = 0.125 x 30 x 24 x25 = 2250 kN
Self Weight of wall = 108 x7.2 = 777.6 kN
Self Weight of Parapet Wall = 108 x 3 =324 kN
Total self weight of a oor = (777.6+537.6+603.75+414+2250) = 4582.95 kN
Self weight of base Floor =705.6+1017.75+2250 = 3973.35 kN
Total Live Load on Floor = 30 x 24 x5 = 3600kN
Seismic weight of a oor = 4582.95+(0.5x 3600) =6382.95 kN
Seismic weight of a base = 3973.35+(0.5x 3600) =5773.35 kN
Seismic weight of the roof = 0.5 x(777.6+537.6)+1017.75+2250+324 = 4249.35 kN
Total Seismic Weight of the structure = W = 8 x 6382.95+5773.35 + 4249.35 = 61086.3 kN
Natural Period = Tx = 0.542 sec

Ty = 0.606 sec
Z:I:Sa
Design Horizontal Acceleration Spectrum in X direction Ah = 2:R:g
0:16: 1:5 2:50
Ah = = 0:06
2 5
Z:I:Sa
Design Horizontal Acceleration Spectrum in Y direction Ah = 2:R:g
0:16: 1:5 2:24
Ah = = 0:053
2 5
Base Shear = VB = AhW
VB = 0:06 61086:3= 3665.17 kN
VB = 0:053 61086:3= 3237.57 kN

Results Comparison
The theoretical results for Base shear is obtained using manual

calculation and it is compared with etab 13 output.
Figure 7.2: Etab 13 Base Shear output
Conclusion
Comparing the results obtained from the manual calculation and software analyzed by
the Equivalent Static Method are almost the same.

OUTCOME OF THE PROJECT
The paper entitled \Parametric study on RCC and Composite Building" has
been submitted for acceptance in Journal of Structural Engineering.
The paper entitled \Comparative Study on Structural Parameter of RCC and
Com-posite Building" has been submitted for acceptance in International Journal
of Engi-neering Research and Applications.
1 2
Authors: Prof. S. S. Charantimath , Prof. Swapnil B.Cholekar , and Manjunath
3
M. Birje
1. Associate Professor, sscharantimath@gmail.com,Dept. of Civil Engg.,

KLESCET, Belgaum.
2. Assistant Professor, swapnil174@gmail.com,Dept. of Civil Engg., KLESCET,

Belgaum.
3. Post Graduate Student, birjecivilman@gmail.com


2KL12CSE08WORLD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2KL12CSE08WORLD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acknowledgement

First and foremost I would like to place on record my heartiest gratitude to my

I am thankful to co-guide Prof. Swapnil B. Cholekar Department of Civil Engi-

I am grateful to Dr. R. V. Raikar , Head, Department of Civil Engineering for his

I am expressing my gratitude to P G Coordinator Dr. V. D. Gundakalle, faculty

I express out deep gratitude to my renowned institute, K.L.E Society's Dr. M.

Steel-concrete composite construction has gained wide acceptance world wide as

Steel-concrete composite construction technique is an e cient, economical and

3.10 e ect of shear connection on bending and shear stresses . . . . . . . . 20

5 MODELING AND ANALYSIS 34

6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 46

6.3 Lateral load for RCC and composite building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 83

3.1 Typical Composite Beam Slab arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5.1 Typical Plan of RCC Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7.1 The frame geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

5.1 Data For Analysis of RCC Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Ah Design horizontal seismic coe cient

Steel-concrete composite system has several advantages over conventional rein-

M .Tech(Structural Engineering)Dissertation 2014 2

There are many advantages associated with steel-concrete composite construction.

 The most e ective utilization of steel and concrete is achieved.

 As the depth of beam reduces, the construction depth reduces, resulting in

 Composite construction provides e cient arrangement to cover large column

 Composite construction is amenable to \fast-track" construction because of using

 Encased steel beam sections have improved re resistance and corrosion.

1.2 Objectives Of The Study

Steel-concrete composite systems have become quite popular in recent times

 Generation of RCC and composite 3D building models of di erent height 10

 To x the preliminary dimension of component.

M .Tech(Structural Engineering)Dissertation 2014 3

 Comparative study of structural parameters like base shear, natural period

 To study the code requirements.

 Identify the performance of the structure.

 Modeling of RCC and composite frames are considered.

 Output of software results are used for comparative study.

 Comparative study involves base shear, mode shape, natural period,

1.4 Scope Of The Study

The scope of the study is as follows:

 Understanding the composite structure behavior.

 Analyzing the 3D model of RCC and composite structure by ETABS 2013

M .Tech(Structural Engineering)Dissertation 2014 4

1.5 Organization Of Dissertation

M .Tech(Structural Engineering)Dissertation 2014 5

M .Tech(Structural Engineering)Dissertation 2014 7

that the displacement of composite structural system is less compared to an R.C.C.

M .Tech(Structural Engineering)Dissertation 2014 8

M .Tech(Structural Engineering)Dissertation 2014 9

Figure 3.1: Typical Composite Beam Slab arrangement

 Concrete is e cient in compression and steel in tension.

 Concrete also gives protection against corrosion provides thermal insulation

 Steel brings ductility into the structure.

3.1.1 Composite Beam De nition

A steel-concrete composite beam consists of a steel beam, over which a reinforced

3.1.2 Composite Column De nition

3.2 Need Of Steel - Concrete Composite Section

M .Tech(Structural Engineering)Dissertation 2014 11

 O ers considerable exibility in design and is easy for fabrication.

 Facilities faster construction scheduling of projects.

 Enables easy construction scheduling even in congested sites.

 Permits large span construction repair/modi cation.

 Is an ideal material in earthquake prone locations due to high strength, sti

 Steel framed composite construction is considered to be a cost e ective

3.3 Composite Beam

The most e ective utilization of steel and concrete is achieved.

As the depth of beam reduces, the construction depth reduces, resulting in

Composite construction provides e cient arrangement to cover large column

Composite construction is amenable to \fast-track" construction because of using

Encased steel beam sections have improved re resistance and corrosion.

Generation of RCC and composite 3D building models of di erent height 10

To x the preliminary dimension of component.

Comparative study of structural parameters like base shear, natural period

To study the code requirements.

Identify the performance of the structure.

Modeling of RCC and composite frames are considered.

Output of software results are used for comparative study.

Comparative study involves base shear, mode shape, natural period,

Understanding the composite structure behavior.

Analyzing the 3D model of RCC and composite structure by ETABS 2013

Concrete is e cient in compression and steel in tension.

Concrete also gives protection against corrosion provides thermal insulation

Steel brings ductility into the structure.

O ers considerable exibility in design and is easy for fabrication.

Facilities faster construction scheduling of projects.

Enables easy construction scheduling even in congested sites.

Permits large span construction repair/modi cation.

Is an ideal material in earthquake prone locations due to high strength, sti

Steel framed composite construction is considered to be a cost e ective

Pro led decking

Stud shear connectors

Reinforcement for shrinkage and temperature stresses

Trapezoidal pro le with web indentations

It supports loads during construction and acts as a working platform.

It develops adequate composite action with concrete to resist the imposed

It transfers in-plane loading by diaphragm action to vertical bracing or shear

It stabilizes the volume of concrete in tension zone.

It distributes shrinkage strains, thus preventing serious cracking of concrete.

The tensile strength of concrete is ignored.

The e ective area of concrete resists a constant stress of 0:85 (f ck) cy = c

Natural bond between concrete and steel due to adhesion.

Mechanical interlock provided by dimples on sheet and shear connectors.

Provision of end anchorage by shot red pins or by welding studs when