Abstract

n Study of behavior of composite building with Concrete-Encased Steel (CES) columns for blast loading is done. This is compared with the behavior of conventional building having reinforced concrete (RC) columns. In the following study, both composite and RC buildings are subjected to 0.1 ton, 0.3 ton and 0.5 ton TNT equivalent charge weight of blast load with a standoff distance of 20 m, 30 m and 40 m. To study the static properties due to variation in standoff distance and blast intensity, (G+4) buildings with composite and RC columns are analyzed using parameters like storey displacement, storey drift, bending moment are compared. The Linear Static Analysis is carried out by using ETABS 2018 software. From the results obtained, it is observed that the vulnerability of a multi-storey structure is least for a low intensity blast generated at a comfortably longer standoff distance.n

n

n

n

[foreach 379]n

n [/foreach]n

u276e u276f

nn

n

n Referencesn

n [if 1104 equals=””]n

1. Nourzadeh D, Humar Jagmohan, Braimah Abass. Comparison of response of building structures to Blast Loading and seismic excitations. Procedia Eng. December 2017;210:320–5. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.11.083.
2. Abdullah Mohammad M, Osman Bashir H. Numerical analysis of steel building under Blast Loading. Int J Eng Res Technol. November 2014.
3. Sevim Barış, Toy Ahmet Tuğrul. Blasting response of a two storey RC building under different charge weight of TNT explosives. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng. 2020;44(2):565–77. doi:
10.1007/s40996–019–00256–0.
4. Goel Manmohan Dass, Matsagar Vasant A. Blast-resistant design of structures. Pract Period Struct Des Constr ASCE-ISSN. August 2013:1084–0680/04014007.
5. Wu Ke-Chiang, Li B, Tsai K. The Effects of explosive mass ratio on residual compressive capacity of contact blast damaged composite columns. J Constr Steel Res. 2011;67(4):602–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.12.001.
6. Guzas Emily L, Earls Christopher J. Simulating blast effects on steel beam-column members: methods. Comput Struct. September 2011;89(23–24):2133–48. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.08.014.
7. Denny Jack W, Clubley Simon K. Long-duration blast loading and response of steel column sections at different angles of incidence. Eng Struct. 2019;178:331–42. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.10.019.
8. Khan Sameer, Saha Sandip Kumar et al. Fragility of steel frame buildings under Blast Load. J Perform Constr Facil ASCE ISSN. February 2017;3828:0887.
9. Lai Binglin, Richard Liew JY, Wang Tongyun. Buckling behaviour of high strength concrete encased steel composite columns. J Constr Steel Res. 2019;154:27–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.11.023.
10. Figuli Lucia, Bedon Chiara, Zvaková Z, Jangl Š, Kavický V. Dynamic analysis of a blast loaded steel structure. Procedia Eng. 2017;199:2463–9. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.388.
11. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Manual 2008. Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions. United States and America: Department of Defense.

nn [/if 1104][if 1104 not_equal=””]n

[foreach 1102]n
1. [if 1106 equals=””], [/if 1106][if 1106 not_equal=””],[/ifn 1106]

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1104]n

n

n

n

Journal of Structural Engineering and Management

n

[if 344 not_equal=””]ISSN: 2393-8773[/if 344]n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Editor

n

[foreach 1188]n

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1190] [if 1177 not_equal=””]n

Reviewer

n

[foreach 1176]n

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1177]n

Abstract

n The study delves to evaluate the performance of beam slab and flat plate slab in the building frame due to seismic load. Two models of the same layout plan and story levels were compared under seismic load as per BNBC 2016—one was a typical frame structure with beam slab i.e., model 1 and another one was a frame structure with a flat slab, i.e., model 2. Frame structure with beam slab (model 1) reduced story drift varying from 16.34 to 66.67% at various floor levels compared to a frame structure with a flat slab (model 2). It is evident that beam slab can control drift and reduce story-wise drift significantly. Story-wise column shear force decreased in presence of beam in the building frame under earthquake load. Story-wise bending moment at the bottom of column decreased with the rise of story height under seismic load in both models. However, the bending moment at different story levels was much lower in frame structure with beam slab. Column reaction at the corner and middle columns under seismic load decreased to 19.08% and 70.20% respectively in the beam slab frame. Since there was no beam in the structure, overturning moment adding up to 55% in model 2 compared to model 1.n

n

n

n

[foreach 379]n

n [/foreach]n

u276e u276f

nn

n

n Referencesn

n [if 1104 equals=””]n

1. Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) 2016. Housing and Building Research Institute, Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institute, 2016.
2. Qian K, Li B. Dynamic disproportionate collapse in flat-slab structures. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. 2015; 29(5): B4014005. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000680.
3. Pahwa S, Tiwari V, Prajapati M. Comparative study of flat slab with old traditional two way slab. International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology (IJLTET). 2014; 4(2):252– 260.
4. Lande PS, Raut AB. Seismic behaviour of flat slab systems. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Environmental Technology.2015; 2(10): 7–10.
5. Navyashree K, Sahana TS. Use of flat slabs in multi-story commercial building situated in high seismic zone. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology. 2014; 3(08): 439–451.
6. Sable KS, Ghodechor VA, Kandekar SB. Comparative study of seismic behaviour of multi-story flat slab and conventional reinforced concrete framed structures. International Journal of Computer Technology and Electronics Engineering. 2012; 2(3): 17–26.
7. Coelho E, Candeias P, Anamateros G, Zaharia R, Taucer F, Pinto AV. Assessment of the seismic behavior of RC flat slab building structures. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Vancouver, BC. 2004, August.
8. Medasana VN, Chintada V. Seismic study and performance of 30 story high rise building with beam slab, flat slab and alternate flat-beam slab systems in Zone-V. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). 2017; 4(02): 1183–1190.
9. Spoorthy T, Reddy SR. Comparison between the seismic variation of conventional RC slab and flat slab with a drop for G+15 story building in different zones using ETABS software. International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas, and Innovations in Technology (IJARIIT). 2018; 4(3): 963–969.
10. Barua S, Rabaka S. A study on influence of core wall in frame structure under seismic load. DIU Journal of Science and Technology (DIUJST).2020; 15(1):31–36. http://dspace.daffodilvarsity.edu.bd:8080/handle/123456789/3947
11. ACI Committee, 2008. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. American Concrete Institute.

nn [/if 1104][if 1104 not_equal=””]n

[foreach 1102]n
1. [if 1106 equals=””], [/if 1106][if 1106 not_equal=””],[/ifn 1106]

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1104]n

n

n

n

Journal of Structural Engineering and Management

n

[if 344 not_equal=””]ISSN: 2393-8773[/if 344]n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Editor

n

[foreach 1188]n

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1190] [if 1177 not_equal=””]n

Reviewer

n

[foreach 1176]n

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1177]n

Abstract

n There are different types of slabs from which the slab supported by column and beam is called as Conventional slab and the slab which is supported by Column and drop but the beam is not used in this slab is called as flat slab. Live and dead loads are transferred from slab to drop and then it is transfer to columns. This type of slab mostly preferred for long span areas or plain ceiling etc. these types of buildings can be analyzed against earthquake and this earthquake forces are dangerous for building if these buildings are not analyzed for resist the earthquake forces. In this study we considered the earthquake afferect and obtaining the effect and behavior of the that seismic analysis for different model of flat slab with drop and without drop for G+15, 20 and 25 story in terms of model time period, displacement, drift and base shear.n

n

n

n

[foreach 379]n

n [/foreach]n

u276e u276f

nn

n

n Referencesn

n [if 1104 equals=””]n

1. R.S. More, et.al “Analysis of Flat Slab”. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (online): 2319-7064
2. N. Girish1, N. Lingeshwaran “A Comparative Study of Flat Slabs Using Different Shear Reinforcement Parameters”. International Journal of Engineering & Technology (2018) 321-325.
3. Kaulkhere R.V, Prof G. N. Shete “Analysis and Design of Flat slab with various shapes”. IJSDR |Volume 2, Issue 5. ISSN: 2455-2631
4. K.Vivek, Prof G.V.Rama Rao, “Seismic Analysis and Comparison between flat Slab and Grid Slab with Different Masonry in fill”.
5. Ashish S. Bora, Darshan G. Gaidhankar, Mrudula S. Kulkarni, “Analysis of Flat Slab With And Without Opening” International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research Volume 8, Issue 09, September 2019 ISSN 2277-8616
6. M. Altug erberik, Amr S. Elnashai, “Vulnerability Analysis of Flat Slab Structures”. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004
A. Osman and M. Abdel Azim, “Analysis and Behavior of High-rise Buildings with Transfer Plate System”. 13th Arab Structural Engineering Conference University of Blida December 13-15, 2015 Algeria.
8. Dhiman Basu and Sudhir K. Jain “Seismic Analysis of Asymmetric Buildings with Flexible Floor Diaphragms.”Journal of structural engineering © asce / august 2004.
9. A. S. Shaikh, Dr. R. S. Desai, H. S. Nakhwa, “Comparative Study of Multi-Storied Building With And Without Transfer Floor”.International journal of research and applied science and Engineering technology. Ijraset.
10. Yasser M. Abdlebasset, Ezzeldin Y. Sayed-Ahmed, Sherif A. Mourad, “High-Rise Buildings with Transfer Floors: Construction Stages Analysis”journal of Al Azhar university Engineering sector. Vol 11, No.40, July 2016,927,942.

nn [/if 1104][if 1104 not_equal=””]n

[foreach 1102]n
1. [if 1106 equals=””], [/if 1106][if 1106 not_equal=””],[/ifn 1106]

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1104]n

n

n

n

Journal of Structural Engineering and Management

n

[if 344 not_equal=””]ISSN: 2393-8773[/if 344]n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Editor

n

[foreach 1188]n

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1190] [if 1177 not_equal=””]n

Reviewer

n

[foreach 1176]n

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1177]n

Abstract

n The strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings with masonry infill wall and with open ground storey is a very timely and significant topic because of the poor performance against seismic action. The absence of infill walls in the ground storey makes the ground storey less stiff and weaker than the all upper storys which results in a poor performance against lateral loads. Soft storey mechanism prevails in these cases and causes premature failure. The objective of this paper is to oversee the response of different strengthening systems applied in ground storey of the building to improve the seismic behavior based on numerical analyzes. The strengthening options are chosen and provided in such a way that the options will not block the free space in the ground storey level which is kept open to serve different purposes. In addition, the study highlights the building performance by obtaining the capacity of different options and represents the variation of time period with the change of stiffness. The strengthening options investigated were design columns of ground storey for higher load, fixing diagonal bracing at the exterior sides, providing lateral buttresses and installing shear wall on exterior four corners. To find out the effective strengthening option without create any obstacle to the service for which the ground storey is kept open, the results from analyzes of strengthened buildings will be compared.n

n

n

n

[foreach 379]n

n [/foreach]n

u276e u276f

nn

n

n Referencesn

n [if 1104 equals=””]n

1. Saneinejad A, Hobbs B. Inelastic design of infilled frames. J Struct Eng. 1995;121(4):634–50. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9445(1995)121:4(634).
2. Abdelkareem KH, Abdel Sayed FK, Ahmed MH, et al. Equivalent strut width for modelling R.C. infilled frames. J Eng Sci. 2013; 41(3):851–66p.
3. Asteris PG, Antoniou ST, Sophianopoulos DS, Chrysostomou CZ. Mathematical macro modeling of infilled frames: State of the Art. J Struct Eng. 2011;137(12):1508–17. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943–541X.0000384.
4. Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Varum H, et al. Assessment and strengthening strategies of existing RC buildings with potential soft-storey response. 9th International Masonry Conference. Portugal: Guimaraes; 2014. p. 1–9p.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Base Shear,(KN)
Roof Displacement, (m)
(c)
(d)
Journal of Structural Engineering and Management
Volume 8, Issue 2
ISSN: 2393-8773
© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 36
5. Mashhadiali N, Saadati S, Mohajerani SAM, Ebadi P. Hybrid braced frame with buckling-restrained and strong braces to mitigate soft story. J Constr Steel Res. 2021;181. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106610, PMID 106610.
6. Khan D, Rawat A. Nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry infill RC buildings with eccentric bracings at soft storey level. Procedia Eng. 2016;161:9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.490.
7. Ruiz SE, Santos-Santiago MA, Bojórquez E, Orellana MA, Valenzuela-Beltrán F, Bojórquez J, Barraza M. BRB Retrofit of mid-rise soft-first-story RC moment-frame buildings with masonry infill in upper stories. J Build Eng. 2021;38. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101783.
8. Javadi P, Yamakawa T. Strength and ductility type retrofit of soft-first-story RC frames through the steel-jacketed non-reinforced thick hybrid wall. Eng Struct. 2019;186:255–69. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.02.013.
9. Mashhadiali N, Kheyroddin A. Seismic performance of concentrically braced frame with hexagonal pattern of braces to mitigate soft story behavior. Eng Struct. 2018;175:27–40. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.036.
10. Narkhede DV, Deshkukh GP. Performance of shear wall building at various positions by using pushover analysis. Int J Res Advent Technol. National Conference Convergence 2016. April 06–07, 2016 [Special Issue].
11. Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Varum H, Costa A. Evaluation of different strengthening techniques efficiency for a soft storey building. Eur J Environ Civ Eng. 2017;21(4):371–88. doi: 10.1080/19648189.2015.1119064.
12. Sahoo DR, Rai DC. Design and evaluation of seismic strengthening techniques for reinforced concrete frames with soft ground story. Eng Struct. 2013;56(11):1933–44. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.018.
13. Uva G, Porco F, Fiore A. Appraisal of masonry infill walls effect in the seismic response of RC framed buildings: A case study. Eng Struct. 2012;34(1):514–26. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.08.043.
14. Amin MR, Hasan P, Islam BKMA. Effect of soft storey on multi storied reinforced concrete building frame. 4th Annual Paper Meet and 1st. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Civil Engineering Congress; 2011. p. 267–72p.
15. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK. Effectiveness of some strengthening options for masonry-infilled RC frames with open first story. J Struct Eng. 2009;135(8):925–37. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9445(2009)135:8(925).
16. Erdem I, Akyuz U, Ersoy U, Ozcebe G. An experimental study on two different strengthening techniques for RC frames. Eng Struct. 2006;28(13):1843–51. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.03.010.
17. Holmes M. Steel frames with brick and concrete infilling. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 1961;19(4):473–8. doi: 10.1680/iicep.1961.11305.
18. Smith BS, Carter C. A method of analysis for infill frames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 1969;44:31–48.
19. Mainstone RJ. On the stiffness and strength of infilled frames. Proceeding Inst Civ Eng. 1971:57–90p; Supplement IV.
20. Mainstone RJ, Weeks GA. The influence of bounding frame on the racking stiffness and strength of brick walls. Proceedings of the 2nd interface brick masonry conference. Watford, England: Building Research Establishment; 1970. p. 165–71p.
21. Mainstone RJ. Supplementary notes on the stiffness and strength of infilled frames. Current. Vols. 13/74. Garston, Watford, U.K.: Building Research Station; 1974:Paper CP.
22. Bazan E, Meli R. Seismic analysis of structures with masonry walls. 7th World conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 5. Tokyo: International Association of Earthquake Engineering (IAEE); 1980. p. 633–40p.
23. Te-Chang L, Kwok-Hung K. Nonlinear behaviour of non-integral infilled frames. Comput Struct. 1984;18(3):551–60. doi: 10.1016/0045–7949(84)90070–1.

nn [/if 1104][if 1104 not_equal=””]n

[foreach 1102]n
1. [if 1106 equals=””], [/if 1106][if 1106 not_equal=””],[/ifn 1106]

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1104]n

n

n

n

Journal of Structural Engineering and Management

n

[if 344 not_equal=””]ISSN: 2393-8773[/if 344]n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Editor

n

[foreach 1188]n

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1190] [if 1177 not_equal=””]n

Reviewer

n

[foreach 1176]n

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1177]n

Abstract

n Modal evaluation is the technique of figuring out the inherent dynamic traits of the shape in phrases of herbal frequencies and mode shapes and the usage of them to create a mathematical version for its dynamic behavior. The dynamics of a structure is defined by frequency and position. Modal evaluation offers the records regarding to exceptional modes of vibration, exceptional form that may be taken up via way of means of the shape at some stage in vibration. These shapes during different modes are called mode shapes and all mode shapes have their corresponding natural frequencies. In this study, modal analysis on 3D-RC masonry infill (MI) model and prototype frames with openings are carried out. MI is modeled as equivalent diagonal strut which is a macro-modeling technique as per the formulation from IS 1893 (Part-1):2016. The natural frequencies obtained from modal analysis are compared with the time period formula from IS 1893 (Part-1):2016.n

n

n

n

[foreach 379]n

n [/foreach]n

u276e u276f

nn

n

n Referencesn

n [if 1104 equals=””]n

1. Stafford Smith BS, Carter C. A method of analysis for infilled frames. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers. 1969;44(1):31–48.doi: 10.1680/iicep.1969.7290.
2. Chethan K, Babu Ramesh, Venkataramana Katta, Sharma Akanshu. Studies on the influence of infill on dynamic characteristics of reinforced concrete frames. J CPRI. 2009;5(2).
3. Prabhu Raja, Ramu MV, Thyla PR. Development of structural similitude and scaling laws for elastic models. Int J Manuf Eng. 2010;9(3):67–9.
4. Asteris Panagiotis G, Giannopoulos Ioannis P, Chrysostomou Christis Z. Modeling of infilled frames with openings. TOBCTJ ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Greece. 2011;6(1):81–91. doi:
10.2174/1874836801206010081. 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 BF
Model 4.47 4.48 4.50 4.53 4.56 4.62 4.62 4.65 4.76 4.92 5.59
Prototype 1.68 1.69 1.70 1.72 1.73 1.75 1.77 1.79 1.81 1.83 1.87
Natural Frequency in Hz
% Openings Comparison of Natural Frequency along Out-of-Plane Model Prototype
5. Kulkarni PB, Kulkarni PB, Raut Pooja. Analysis of masonry infilled R.C. Frame with and without opening including soft storey by using equivalent diagonal strut method. Int J Sci Res Publ. September 2013;3(9).
6. Di Trapani F, Di Trapani F, Shing PB, ASCE M, Cavaleri L. Macro element model for in-plane and out-of-plane responses of masonry infills in frame structures. J Struct Eng. 2017;2018:144(2).
7. Yang Guang, Zhao Erfeng, Li Xiaoya. mad Norouzzadeh Tochaei, Kan, Wei Zhang. Research on improved equivalent diagonal strut model for masonry-infilled RC frame with flexible connection. Hindawi Advances in Civil Engineering. 2019.
8. Indian Standard, IS 456–2000. Plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice. New Delhi, India: BIS.
9. Indian standard is 1893 (Part 1): 2016. Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1: General provisions and buildings, fifth revision. New Delhi, India: BIS.

nn [/if 1104][if 1104 not_equal=””]n

[foreach 1102]n
1. [if 1106 equals=””], [/if 1106][if 1106 not_equal=””],[/ifn 1106]

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1104]n

n

n

n

Journal of Structural Engineering and Management

n

[if 344 not_equal=””]ISSN: 2393-8773[/if 344]n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Editor

n

[foreach 1188]n

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1190] [if 1177 not_equal=””]n

Reviewer

n

[foreach 1176]n

n [/foreach]n

n [/if 1177]n