Comparative Study of the Seismic Behaviour of G+20 Storey Building for Unsymmetrical Plan Area Using Light Weight Concrete and Normal Weight Concrete

Abstract

This research examines and compares the performance of structural lightweight concrete (SLWC) made with scoria and normal weight concrete (NWC), and normal and light weight concrete (NAL) in multi-storey buildings. A G+20 multi-storey unsymmetrical plan building is analysed using the response spectrum method with SLWC and NWC. Bending moment, shear force, storey shear, axial force, storey drift, and storey displacement are considered. The results show that SLWC can be used to reduce the weight of buildings without sacrificing strength or performance. This can lead to significant cost savings on construction and materials.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

The construction of tall buildings is a complex and challenging task. It requires careful consideration of a number of factors, including structural safety, cost, and sustainability. In recent years, there has been a growing demand for tall buildings, driven by factors such as rapid population growth and economic development. One way to address the challenges of tall building construction is to use lightweight concrete. Lightweight concrete is a type of concrete that has a lower density than traditional concrete. This is achieved by using lightweight aggregates, such as expanded shale, scoria, clay, or slate. Lightweight concrete can weigh up to 35% less than traditional concrete, while still maintaining good strength and other desirable properties.

II. NORMAL CONCRETE AND LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE

1. Lightweight concrete is a type of concrete with a reduced density, typically achieved by using lightweight aggregates. This makes it lighter than normal concrete, but with comparable structural strength. Lightweight concrete offers several advantages over normal concrete, including:

a. Improved thermal insulation: Lightweight concrete has a higher porosity than normal concrete, which gives it better thermal insulation properties. This can help to reduce energy costs and improve the comfort of buildings.

b. Better fire resistance: Lightweight concrete has a lower thermal conductivity than normal concrete, which means that it takes longer to heat up in a fire. This gives lightweight concrete structures better fire resistance.

c. Reduced dead loads: Lightweight concrete is lighter than normal concrete, which reduces the dead load on a structure. This can lead to smaller foundation sizes and other structural components, which can save money on construction costs.

2. Normal concrete is the most common type of concrete used in construction. It is made with a mixture of cement, sand, gravel, and water. Normal concrete is strong and durable, but it is also heavy.

The choice between lightweight concrete and normal concrete for a particular building project depends on a number of factors, including:

a. Intended use of the structure: Lightweight concrete is often used for buildings where weight is a concern, such as high-rise buildings, bridges, and offshore structures. Normal concrete is typically used for buildings where durability and affordability are of the utmost importance.

b. Budget constraints: Lightweight concrete can be more expensive than normal concrete, but the cost savings on foundation size and other structural components can offset the higher cost of the concrete itself.

c. Seismic considerations: Lightweight concrete can be a good choice for buildings in seismic zones, as it can reduce the overall weight of the structure and make it less susceptible to damage during an earthquake.

d. Sustainability goals: Lightweight concrete can help to reduce the environmental impact of a building project by reducing the amount of material needed and the energy required to transport it.

In general, lightweight concrete is a good choice for buildings where weight is a concern, such as high-rise buildings, bridges, and offshore structures. It is also a good choice for buildings in seismic zones and buildings where sustainability goals are important. Normal concrete is a good choice for buildings where durability and affordability are of the utmost importance.

III. PROCEDURE AND 3D MODELING OF THE STRUCTURE

Seismic analysis of a G+20 storey building was performed using a software approach, in accordance with IS 1893(PART1):2016, using the response spectrum analysis method. Input details and model descriptions are mentioned below:

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

On keeping in mind the above problem statement outlined for new research work is proposed in the form of conclusive outcomes are given below :-

1. To create and study various cases of residential apartment building (G+20) configuration with Normal Concrete with Light Weight Concrete configurations. Also, it is essential to conduct a study with usage of both types of concrete within building structures that will help to understand the behaviour of mix behaviour.
2. To check behaviour in the analysis, it is recommended to create unsymmetrical plan areas.
3. To create and study various cases of NC, LWC and NAL over medium soil and comparing them by using Response Spectrum Method of dynamic analysis.
4. To determine and compare maximum displacement in X and Y direction for NC, LWC and NAL unsymmetrical building structure.
5. To study the variation in base shear in both X and Y direction for NC, LWC and NAL unsymmetrical building structure.
6. To determine maximum axial forces in columns at base level for various cases.
7. To study and relate the maximum shear forces and bending moment in beam member for NC, LWC and NAL unsymmetrical building structure.
8. To evaluate and relate storey drift in both X and Y direction for NC, LWC and NAL unsymmetrical building structure.

V. RESULTS ANALYSIS

The application of loads and their combinations on different cases as per the Indian Standard 1893:2016 code of practice yield result parameters under normal weight concrete, light weight concrete and normal and light weight concrete.

Result of each parameter has discussed with its representation in graphical form below:-

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I, Piyush Bhawsar, M. Tech. Student, would like to thank Dr. Umesh Pendharkar, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ujjain Engineering College, Ujjain, (M.P.), India for his valuable guidance from the commencement of the work up to the completion of the work along with his encouraging thoughts.

Conclusion

The conclusion can be pointed out for unsymmetrical plan areas are as follows:- 1) On comparing maximum displacement values with unsymmetrical plan area, For roof level, a) The displacement values decreases by 15.54% in X direction and increases by 3.37% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC)with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The displacement values increases by 9.63% in X direction and increases by 9.63% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete(LWC). For 6th floor level, a) The displacement values decreases by 37.11% in X direction and decreases by 30.70% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The displacement values increases by 9.63% in X direction and increases by 9.63% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete (LWC). For plinth level, a) The displacement values decreases by 27.86% in X direction and decreases by 28.11% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The displacement values increases by 9.62% in X direction and increases by 9.61% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete (LWC). 2) Observing base shear values, since the plan area is unsymmetrical in both X and Y plane, comparing with normal concrete (NC) for X and Y directions, the base shear decreases by 28% and 28% for normal & light weight concrete (NAL) and decreases by 28% and 28% for light weight concrete (LWC) respectively. 3) Comparing maximum axial forces in column with unsymmetrical plan area, with normal concrete (NC) the values decreases by 25.64% comparing with normal & light weight concrete (NAL) and decreases by 28% comparing with light weight concrete (LWC) respectively. 4) On comparing maximum shear force values with unsymmetrical plan area. For roof level, a) The shear force values decreases by 24.54% in V2 direction and decreases by 24.83% in V3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The shear force values decreases by 28% in V2 direction and decreases by 28.04% in V3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete (LWC). For 6th floor level, a) The shear force values decreases by 20.40% in V2 direction and decreases by 24.83% in V3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The shear force value decreases by 28% in V2 direction and decreases by 28% in V3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete (LWC). For plinth level, a) The shear force values decreases by 19.65% in V2 direction and decreases by 24.82% in V3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The shear force values decreases by 28% in V2 direction and decreases by 28% in V3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete (LWC). 5) On comparing maximum bending moment values with unsymmetrical plan area, For roof level, a) The bending moment values decreases by 51.17% in M2 direction and decreases by 23.60% in M3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The bending moment values decreases by 28.01% in M2 direction and decreases by 28% in M3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete (LWC). For 6th floor level, a) The bending moment values increases by 83.% in M2 direction and decreases by 21.45% in M3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The bending moment values decreases by 28% in M2 direction and decreases by 28% in M3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC)with light weight concrete (LWC). For plinth level, a) The bending moment values decreases by 25.33% in M2 direction and decreases by 25.03% in M3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The bending moment values decreases by 28% in M2 direction and decreases by 28% in M3 direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete (LWC). 6) On comparing storey drift values with unsymmetrical plan area, For roof level, a) The storey drift values increases by 4.48% in X direction and increases by 25.14% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with normal &light weight concrete (NAL). b) The storey drift values increases by 9.63% in X direction and increases by 9.62% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete (LWC). For 6th floor level, a) The storey drift values decreases by 21.48% in X direction and decreases by 28.71% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC)with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The storey drift values increases by 9.60% in X direction and increases by 9.62% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete (LWC). For plinth level, a) The storey drift values decreases by 27.90% in X direction and decreases by 28.03% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with normal & light weight concrete (NAL). b) The storey drift values increases by 9.42% in X direction and increases by 9.83% in Y direction when comparing normal concrete (NC) with light weight concrete (LWC). This project concluded that when The use of NAL or LWC in unsymmetrical plan area buildings can lead to a reduction in lateral forces (base shear and storey drift) and internal forces (axial forces in columns and shear force and bending moment values). This is because these materials have a lower density and higher strength than normal concrete, which results in a lighter and stronger structure. However, it is important to note that storey drift values may increase slightly, especially in the upper floors of the building. Overall, the use of NAL or LWC can improve the structural performance of unsymmetrical plan area buildings.

References

[1] Tuan-Anh Cao, Manh-Tuan Nguyen, Thai-Hoan Pham and Dang-Nguyen Nguyen (2023), “Experimental Study on Flexural Behavior of RC–UHPC Slabs with EPS Lightweight Concrete Core”, Buildings, ISSN: 2075-5309, Vol. 13, paper no. 1372, pp. 1-14. [2] Okafor Chinedum Vincent, Professor Okolie Kevin Chuks, Onyekachukwu Gozie Odenigbo, (2023), “Bespoke Design of a Lightweight Precast Concrete Lintel using Rice Husk Ash for Mass Housing”, International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM), ISSN: 2455-6211, Vol. 11, Issue 6, pp. 665-687. [3] Keat Bin Teoh, Yie Sue Chua, Sze Dai Pang, Sih Ying Kong (2023), “Experimental investigation of lightweight aggregate concrete-filled cold-formed built-up box section (CFBBS) stub columns under axial compression”, Engineering Structures, ISSN: 1873-7323, Vol. 279, paper no. 115630, pp. 1-17. [4] Hala Mamdouh, Ahmed H. Ali, Nehal M. Ayash, Kareem A. M., (2023), “Bond Behavior of GFRP-reinforced lightweight concrete beams”, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research, ISSN: 2348-7607, Vol. 10, Issue 2, pp. 63-70. [5] Firat Kipcak, Baris Erdil, Mucip Tapan, Abdulhalim Kara?in, (2023), “The Effect of Voids on Flexural Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs”, Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, Issue -2023, pp. 1-18. [6] Abdulkader Ismail Al-Hadithi, Nahla Naji Hilal, Majid Al-Gburi, Ammar Hamed Midher (2023), “Structural behavior of reinforced lightweight self-compacting concrete beams using expanded polystyrene as coarse aggregate and containing polyethylene terephthalate fibers”, Structural Concrete, ISSN:1751-7648. [7] Yue Li, Xinlan Wu, Xiaorun Li, Kechao Zhang and Chongming Gao (2022), “Compression Performance and Calculation Method of Thin-Walled Prefabricated Steel Tube Lightweight Concrete Columns”, Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol. 2022, pp. 1-11. [8] Yingguang Fang, Yafei Xu and Renguo Gu, (2022), “Experiment and Analysis of Mechanical Properties of Lightweight Concrete Prefabricated Building Structure Beams”, International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, Vol. 16, Issue 5, pp. 1-11. [9] Florian Junker and Klaus Holschemacher, (2022), “Creep Behavior of Steel Fiber Reinforced Lightweight Concrete Beams Under Flexural Loading” Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction, ISSN: 2644-108X, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp. 1-6. [10] Darius Bacinskas, Deividas Rumsys and Gintaris Kaklauskas (2022), “Numerical Deformation Analysis of Reinforced Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Flexural Members”, Materials, ISSN: 1996-1944, Vol. 15, paper no. 1005, pp. 1-13. [11] Camilo Higuera-Florez, Jhon Cardenas-Pulido, A. Vargas-Aguilar, (2022), “Mechanical and durability performance of lightweight concrete (LWC) from colombian thermally expanded clay aggregates”, Scientia et Technica Año XXVII, Vol. 27, No. 03, ISSN: 2344-7214, Vol. 27, Issue 03, pp. 167-176. [12] A.B.M. Saiful Islam, Walid, A. Al-Kutti, Muhammad Nasir, Zaheer Abbas Kazmi and Mahmoud Sodangi, (2022), “Potential use of local waste scoria as an aggregate and SWOT analysis for constructing structural lightweight concrete”, Advances in Materials Research, Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 147-164 [13] Syahrul, M. W. Tjaronge, Rudy Djamaluddin, A. A. Amiruddin (2021), “Flexural Behavior of Normal and Lightweight Concrete Composite Beams”, Civil Engineering Journal, ISSN: 2476-3055, Vol. 7, Issue 3, pp. 549-559. [14] Mohamed Sifan, Perampalam Gatheeshgar, Satheeskumar Navaratnam, Brabha Nagaratnam, Keerthan Poologanathan, Julian Thamboo, Thadshajini Suntharalingam, (2021), “Flexural behaviour and design of hollow flange cold-formed steel beam filled with lightweight normal and lightweight high strength concrete”, Journal of Building Engineering, ISSN 2352-7102, Vol. 48, paper no. 103878, pp. 1-17. [15] Roz-Ud-Din Nassar, Sheroz Saleem Bhatti1, Mohamed Shahin, Munemul Hossain and Haitham Ahmad Al Slibi, (2020), “Lightweight aggregate concrete produced with crushed stone sand as fine aggregate”, Cogent Engineering, Vol. 7, paper no. 1792219, pp. 1-13. [16] Mohammed Ibrahim, Aftab Ahmad, Mohammed S. Barry, Luai M. Alhems and A. C. Mohamed Suhoothi, (2020), “Durability of Structural Lightweight Concrete Containing Expanded Perlite Aggregate”, International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, Vol. 14, Issue 50, pp – 1-15. [17] Eniyachandramouli Gunasekaran, Govindhan Shanmugam and Ranjithselvan Karuppusamy, (2020), “Enhancement of Mechanical Properties of Lightweight Hybrid Fibre Reinforced Concrete (LWHFRC)”, Journal of Advanced Research, ISSN: 2320-5407, Vol. 8, Issue 9, pp. 86-104. [18] Sajjad abdulameer badar, Laith Shakir Rasheed, Shakir Ahmed Salih, (2019), “The Structural Characteristics of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Beams”, Journal of University of Babylon for Engineering Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 64-73. [19] Mirza Mahaboob Baig, C Mahalingam, Yalavarty Nithin, (2019), “A Comparative Study on Seismic Analysis and Design of Structural Lightweight and Normal Weight Concrete High Rise Building”, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8, Issue-6S3, pp. 145-149. [20] Dr. Ali Hadi Adheem, Dr. Laith Sh. Rasheed, Dr. Isam M. Ali, (2018), “Flexural Behavior of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete One Way Slabs”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Volume 9, Issue 13, December 2018, pp. 277-289. [21] Deividas Rumsys, Edmundas Spudulis, Darius Bacinskas and Gintaris Kaklauskas (2018), “Compressive strength and durability properties of structural lightweight concrete with fine expanded glass and/or clay aggregates”, Preprint, pp. 1-14. [22] Deividas Rumsys, Darius Bacinskas, Edmundas Spudulis Adas Meskenas (2017), “Comparison of material properties of lightweight concrete with recycled polyethylene and expanded clay aggregates”, Modern Building Materials, Structures and Techniques, MBMST, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 172, pp. 937 – 944. [23] Bhuvaneshwari. K, Dr. Dhanalakshmi. G, Kaleeswari. G., (2017), “Experimental Study On Lightweight Concrete Using Perlite”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), ISSN: 2395-0056, Vol. 4, Issue 4, pp - 2451-2455. [24] Aliyu Abubakar, Samson Duna, (2017), “Utilization of Scoria as Aggregate in Lightweight Concrete”, International Journal of Engineering Research, ISSN: 2319-6890, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp - 34-37. [25] Mohamed A. El Zareef, (2016), “Seismic damage assessment of multi-story lightweight concrete frame buildings reinforced with glass-fiber rods”, Bull Earthquake Eng, pp. 1-20. [26] Kim Hung Mo, U. Johnson Alengaram and Mohd Zamin Jumaat, (2014), “A Review on the Use of Agriculture Waste Material as Lightweight Aggregate for Reinforced Concrete Structural Members”, Advances in Materials Science and Engineering Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Article ID 365197, pp. 1-9. [27] IS 1893:2016 - Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Piyush Bhawsar, Dr. Umesh Pendharkar. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.