conventional formwork & mivan formwork structure a ...€¦international journal of recent...
Post on 25-Jun-2018
232 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
DOI:10.23883/IJRTER.2018.4266.JHJOC 502
Conventional formwork & mivan formwork structure –
A comparative study &analysis
Kavita Patgar1, Dr. Srinath Shetty K2 1,2 Department of Civil Engineering, NMAMIT Nitte
Abstract— The project is done on a residential building to observe which type of structure gives
better resistance to seismic effect. Residential building of 15 storey is modelled in 3 types such as
conventional type, monolithic structure with openings, and unreinforced masonry infill wall structure
using ETABS. ETABS is powerful software tool used for building analysis and design with easy step
and accurate solution. Parameter like base shear, displacement, storey drift, time period and concrete
quantity is found and compered with these building models. Analysis is done through response
spectrum method.
Keywords— Mivan building; Unreinforced masonry infill wall structure; Response spectrum
analysis; Base shear; Displacement; Storey drift; Time period.
I. INTRODUCTION Construction is one of the noteworthy phase of Indian financial system. It is likewise a crucial part of
development. At present India is second largest populated country in the world when compared in
terms of city population. These improvement ends in amplified call for housing. To conquer from
these problem India has to plan for acquirement of land and fast advent of housing unit at greater
quantity. There is rising awareness these days that the velocity of construction need to be set advanced
significance especially for large housing projects. This crucial for the sooner business of device
investments. It is necessary to reduce the housing cost to acquire the national objective of creating a
large standards. Positive innovative technologies imparting faster production are available for example
prefabrication, tunnel work and aluminum for work of construction and so forth.
In the year 1990’s mivan was developed, at Malaysia. For the construction of mass project
using repetitive formwork in the cost effective manner it was born. When look into worldwide, the
mivan technology used lesser in India compared with other countries. Mivan gives more productivity,
maintenance, quality when used with good materials and proper machineries. Here the formwork is
made by aluminium which gives smooth finished surface, and faster construction because here slab,
column beams are casted monolithically. The technique is very simple and unskilled labours also
adopt this technique very quickly. These aluminium formworks are very light and can repeat up to 250
times.
Infill wall is a 3D framed structure used as supported wall to increase the lateral stability of the
structure. It can be used for architectural purpose also. From past earthquake records shows that use of
infill wall results in good stability. When compared to average intensity of earthquake, RC frame
structure with bracing system have proven better performance despite the fact most of the structure
have not been designed and detailed for Seismic response. In the present work, speedy and low cost
restoration was found to retrain these structures that are beneath excessive chance of earthquake
destruction. Without relocating the people the structure can be substantiated. Each width of the
bracing should be calculated as IS 1893 -2016(part 1).
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 503
II. RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
It is the plot of peak or steady state response of series of oscillation of varying natural frequency that
are found into motion by vibration. In the absence of time history analysis we can compute response
of the building using this method. It gives the prediction of displacement and member force in
structural system.
III.METHODOLGY
A multistoried building of 15 floors residential plan is selected for the project and three different
models such as conventional system, RC structural wall, and unreinforced infill masonry wall are
modeled using ETABS. Using various load condition analysis is done. Earthquake load calculation is
done as per IS 1893 (2016). Zone considered is V. Each floor height is 3m. Figure 3.1 shows the
typical floor plan. Modelling of typical structure is explained in flow chart shown in figure 3.2
Figure 3.1Plan of the structure
Figure 3.2 Flowchart of modelling of conventional structure
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 504
Figure 3.3 Conventional structure analysis Figure 3.4 Mivan structure analysis
Figure 3.5 Unreinforced infill wall masonry structure analysis
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Response spectrum analysis is done for each model to observe the behavior of structure under
different loading condition. Obtained results are compared in following tabular form. The parameter
like Base shear, Displacement, Storey drift and time period are in different floors are obtained and
compared.
4.1 Base shear- It’s the total sum of all load expected at the base.
Table 4.1 Base shear
BASE SHEAR
CONVENTIONAL MIVAN INFILL
WALL
4300.81 2057.27 3621.79
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 505
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
CONVENTIONAL
INFILL WALL
CONVENTIONAL MIVAN INFILL WALL
Series1 4300.81 2057.27 3621.79
BASE SHEAR - RESPONSE SPECTRUM
ANALYSIS
Figure 4.1 Bar chart for Base shear
4.2 Displacement – It’s the total displacement of the storey with respect to ground and it occurs at the
center of diaphragm.
Table 4.2 Displacement
DISPLACEMENT –SPECX
STOREY CONVENTIONAL MIVAN INFILL WALL
16 99.8 3.6 48.8
15 98.8 3.4 47.6
14 96.9 3.2 46.4
13 93.9 2.9 45.1
12 89.7 2.7 43.7
11 84.4 2.4 42.2
10 78.1 2.1 40.7
9 71.7 1.9 37.8
8 64.7 1.6 34.2
7 57.0 1.3 30.3
6 48.7 1.1 26.1
5 39.9 0.8 21.6
4 31.2 0.6 17.1
3 22.1 0.4 12.4
2 12.9 0.2 7.5
1 4.6 0.1 2.8
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 506
0
5
10
15
20
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0
ST
OR
EY
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
CONVENTIONAL
MIVAN
INFILL WALL
Figure 4.2 Bar chart for displacement
4.3 Storey drift – It’s the ratio of consecutive floor displacement to the height of that floor.
Table 4.3 Storey drift
STORY DRIFT -SPECX
STOREY CONVENTIONAL MIVAN INFILL WALL
16 0.000396 0.000075 0.000464
15 0.00076 0.000087 0.000467
14 0.001348 0.000085 0.000525
13 0.001874 0.000088 0.000582
12 0.002255 0.00009 0.000613
11 0.002542 0.000092 0.000604
10 0.002484 0.000092 0.001175
9 0.002652 0.000092 0.001387
8 0.002816 0.000091 0.001472
7 0.002965 0.000088 0.001533
6 0.003085 0.000084 0.001594
5 0.002987 0.000077 0.001566
4 0.003058 0.000069 0.001621
3 0.003068 0.000059 0.001659
2 0.00279 0.000045 0.00158
1 0.001527 0.000024 0.000945
0 0 0 0
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 507
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
ST
OR
EY
DRIFT (mm)
RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
CONVENTIONAL
MIVAN
INFILL WALL
Figure 4.3 Bar chart for storey drift
4.4 Time period – Time taken to complete one oscillation.
Table 4.4 Time period
TIME PERIOD
MODE CONVENTIONAL MIVAN
INFILL
WALL
1 2.44 0.47 1.91
2 2.44 0.43 1.91
3 2.39 0.25 1.81
4 0.82 0.13 0.63
5 0.81 0.11 0.59
6 0.80 0.08 0.57
7 0.47 0.06 0.36
8 0.46 0.06 0.34
9 0.46 0.04 0.33
10 0.32 0.04 0.25
11 0.31 0.04 0.24
12 0.31 0.04 0.23
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 508
0
1
2
3
0 5 10 15TIM
E P
ER
IOD
MODE SHAPE
RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
CONVENTIONAL
MIVAN
INFILL WALL
Figure 4.4 Bar chart for time period
V. CONCLUSION
Base shear of a mivan structure reduces by 51.7 % as compared with conventional structure. In
case of unreinforced infill masonry wall it reduces by 15.6 %
The displacement reduces by 97 % in mivan and reduces by 52.3 % in infill wall structure when
compared with conventional structure
Storey drift reduces by 87% in mivan and it reduces by 42% in infill wall structure as comparing
with conventional structure
Time period reduced by 80% in mivan and it reduces by 21% in infill wall building when
compared to conventional building
REFERENCE I. N.B.Baraskar and U.R.Kawade, “Structural performance of RC structural wall system over conventional beam
column system in G+15 storey building”, 2015, international journal of research general science, Vol. 3, Issue 4.
II. Sajeet.S.B and Supreeth S Gowda, “Earthquake response of different shape of mivan wall tall building”, 2015,
eISSN: 2319-1163, Vol. 4, Issue 10.
III. K.G.Patwari and L.G Kalurkar, “Comparative study of RC flat slab & shear wall with conventional framed
structure in high rise building”, 2015, international journal of engineering research, Vol. 5, Issue: special 3, pp:
612-616.
IV. Haaris M. Mal and Umang Parekh, “Comparative study of conventional structure with monolithic structure”,
2016, international journal of science and research, Vol. 5, issue 5.
top related