IRJET- Seismic Effect of Rigid Floor Diaphragm

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 08 | Aug 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.34 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 433
“SEISMIC EFFECT OF RIGID FLOOR DIAPHRAGM”
Md Aziz Ur Rahman1, Asst. Prof. Navilesh Jamshetty 2
1Student., Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology (Co-Education) Sharnbasva University
kalaburagi, karnataka, India
2Asst. Prof, Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology (Co-Education) Sharnbasva University
---------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - In this study, seismic analysis of multi storey RC
building frames has been carried out considering rigid
diaphragm. A floor diaphragm system is area unit terribly
economical in resisting lateral forces. ETABS 2016 software
has been used for analysis purpose. Analysesofmultistructure
RC building frames area unit dole out in building frame with
floor diaphragm. Two different type of floor diaphragm are
used i.e. semi rigid diaphragm and rigid diaphragm. Results
are collected in terms of story drift, maximum storey
displacement, base shear and time period. Whicharebasically
broke down to evaluate the impacts of different parameters
this methodology centers around the diverse kind of floor
stomach nature in a structure and their viability in
diminishing the sidelong removal and minute at last to
accomplish economy in development with comparable
auxiliary edges.
Key Words: Seismic, Floor diaphragm, Maximum Storey
drift, Maximum Base shear, Storey displacement, Time
period
1. INTRODUCTION
All in all, the RC structures gravity stacking, for example,
Infill block dividers, self-weight of individuals doesn't cause
much impact on the structure, yet the horizontal loadings,
for example, Earthquakesandwindloadingswhichcanincite
bigger measure of parallel powers in the structure which
impacts in disappointment.
The RC confined structure loaded up with infill divider has
more noteworthy firmness rather than RC surrounded
structure without infill brick work, in lightofthefactthatthe
infill stone work divider upgrades the strength of structure
all through the versatile stage. A RC structure ought to be
along the side hardened this can be acquired by giving infill
dividers. The structure comprising of SS have less firmness
as opposed to building having without delicate story
Reinforced concrete diaphragms (floors and rooftops) of a
structure tie the vertical auxiliarycomponents,(forexample,
dividers and edges) together to enable structures to oppose
outside burdens, for example, Gravity and parallel powers
from seismic occasions or wind activity. Floor diaphragms
play a crucial role of transferringforcesfromthestructureto
the lateral force resisting parts that then transferstheforces
from the structure to the bottom. The extents and methods
for interior powers inside solid floor stomachs square
measure fundamentally extra confused than those expected
by some basic ways utilized in current style pursue, similar
to the Equivalent Static Analysis (ESA) technique.
The ESA method is utilized around ninetieth of the ideal
opportunity for basic style, inlightofitsstraightforwardness
and power. The ESA technique has been found by different
analysts to under-gauge the quickening of floors, especially
in the lower levels of the structures prompting poor
forecasts of the basic reaction.
1.1 TYPES OF DIAPHRAGM
 RIGID DIAPHRAGM
 SEMI RIGID DIAPHRAGM
 FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM
Rigid diaphragm
In the rigid floor diaphragm, the lateral forces are
distributed to the vertical load resisting elements (frames,
shear walls) in proportion to their relative stiffness’s. In the
rigid diaphragm thought, the in-plane displacement is
considered to be equal along its entire length under lateral
load. This rigid diaphragm thought is cheap for building
nearly sq. in arrange. A case-in-plane concrete floor is
Associate in nursing example of rigid diaphragm.
Semi-rigid diaphragm
In reality, the diaphragm will neither be absolutely rigid nor
be absolutely versatile. However, so as to alter the analysis

with cheap assumptions, the semi-rigid diaphragm will be
created on a diaphragm's rigidity or flexibility however in
some cases the diaphragm deflection and the vertical lateral
load-resisting (VLLR) elements can be of same magnitude
only in semi-rigid diaphragm
Flexible Diaphragms
Flexible diaphragms distribute loads to elements which
connect to them solely based on the tributary area of the
element within the plane of the diaphragm. A flexible
diaphragm is Roofs or floors similarly as, however not
essentially restricted to that pod like with ply board, wood
decking, or metal decks while not structural concrete
topping slabs. Metal decks with lightweight fill may or may
not be flexible. Diaphragms area unit thought-about
versatile once the utmost lateral deformation of the
diaphragm is over twice the common story drift of the
associated story. This maybe determinedbycomparisonthe
computed center in-plane deflection of the diaphragm itself
beneath lateral load with the drift to adjacent vertical
components beneath tributary lateral load.
1.2 LITERATUREREVIEW
D. R. Gardiner et.al: (look into examines the extent and
patterns of powers in solid floor stomachs, with an
accentuation on exchange powers, under seismic stacking.
This examination thinks about the ensuing things:
mechanical marvel powers that create from the quickening
of the ground mass; move powers that create from the
collaboration of sidelong poweropposingpartswith entirely
unexpected twisting examples, for example, divider and
casing components; and varietyofexchangepowersbecause
of various qualities and solidness of the auxiliary
components
Joel M. Barron and Mary BethD.Hueste (2004):dissected
under seismic stacking, floor and rooftop frameworks in
strengthened cement (RC) structures go about as stomachs
to move horizontal tremor burdens to the vertical parallel
power opposing framework (LFRS). In current pursue, level
stomachs are ordinarily thought to be inflexible, therefore
disregarding the impact of their in plane development in
respect to the vertical LFRS.
M.M. El-Hawary (1994): explores the significance of
including the impacts of the adaptability of the level
stomachs when utilizing the P-delta strategy for
examination, particularly when considering the heaps
connected to middle of the road outlines on supports that
are not part of the horizontal power opposing framework.
Examinations were led for basic frameworks with a variable
number of stories, number of inlets and stomach firmness'
and upheld by unbending jointed plane casings or vertical
brackets.
Seong-Kwon Moon and Dong-GuenLee(1994):embraced
the unbending floor stomach supposition for the
investigation of multistory structure structuresasa resultof
the straightforwardness in the examination system.
Anderson et.al (2005: created scientific models
exploitation business pc programs, SAP 2000 and ETABS to
gauge the seismic exhibition of low-ascent structures with
solid dividers and adaptable stomachs. Oncemore,openings
weren't a piece of the models concocted. Barron and Hueste
(2004) assessed the effect of stomach adaptability on the
auxiliary reaction of 4 structures having 2:1 and 3:1 set up
plan proportions and were 3 and 5 stories tall, severally
2. OBJECTIVES
A detailed literature review is dispensed to outline the
objectives of the thesis. The literature review is mentioned
thoroughly in Chapter two and in brief summarized as
follows:
 To compare buildingswithdifferentlateral resisting
system with regard to their time period, base shear,
story float and relocation. The variation in the
distribution of inertia forces, leads to change in the
distribution of the shear forces and bending
moments in the diaphragm.
 It Resist gravity loads.
 Provide lateral support to vertical resisting
elements & Transfer forces through the

diaphragm
 The dynamic characteristics ofthebuilding
with rigid diaphragm, and consequentlyits
response to seismic ground motion are
different from that of a building with
flexible diaphragm.
 To observe the results of flexible & semi-
rigid diaphragm are identical.
 Flexural Stiffness of the Slabplaysvital role
in Transferring of Forces through
Diaphragm action to the Vertical lateral
force resisting elements
Following steps have been adopted in this study
 A thorough literaturereview tounderstand
the seismic evaluation of building
structures and application of pushover
analysis and time history analysis.
 Select a current structure with stomach
brokenness.
 Design the building as per prevailing
Indian Standard for dead load, live load,
and Earthquake load.
 Analyze the structure utilizing
direct/nonlinear static/powerful
examination techniques.
 Analyze the results and arrive at
conclusions.
4. METHODS OF ANALYSIS
It is an endeavor to research the impact of Irregular
arrangement setup for multistoried fortified solid structure
model. This venture principally underlines on investigation
of a multi-story building (G+12) which is sporadic both in
plan and height. Demonstrating of 13 storeyed R.C.C.
encircled structure will be done on the ETABSprogramming
for investigation. Post examinations of the structure, for
example, Maximum Story Displacement, Base Shear, Story
Drift, and timeframe are processed and after that looked at
for all the broke down cases.
Here the examination is done fortheconductofG+12Storied
Buildings, Floor tallness gave as 3m and furthermore
properties are characterized for the structure. The model of
structures is made in ETABSprogramming.Theseismiczone
considered is zone II and soil type is medium. Thedisplaying
of structure is accomplished for Indian Seismic Zone II, IS
1893-2002.For given structure, stacking with connected
burdens incorporates live burden, quake burden and dead
burden are as indicated by IS 875 section I, part II and
IS1893-2002 individually. Investigation is completed by
Response Spectrum Analysis utilizing ETABS programming.
The examination is completed to decide greatest hub
removal and base shear. After investigation, results are
gotten as charts which are thus seen to frame ends.
Methods for Seismic analysis of buildings may be classified
as follows:
 Equivalent Static Analysis (Linear Static)
 Response Spectrum Analysis (Linear Dynamic)
 Time History Analysis (Nonlinear Dynamic)
4.1 EQUIVALENT STATIC FORCE METHOD
This method of finding the design lateral force is also known
as equivalent static method or seismic coefficient methodor
linear static method or equivalent static method. This
method is found to be simple method as it requires less
computational effort and is based on the formulae as perthe
code of practice. First the structure base shear is registered
for the entire given structure and after that the came about
base shear is appropriated up and down the stature of the
structure. The parallel power at each floor level is
appropriated to singular horizontal burden opposing
components.
Seismic Base Shear (Vb)
The design seismic base shear (Vb) or thetotal designlateral
force along any principle direction is computed by using the
below relation
Vb = Ah x W
Where
Ah = Design Horizontal Acceleration Spectrum Value, using
the fundamental natural period (T) in the considered
direction of vibration and it can be determined by the
relation
Ah = 𝑍2∗𝐼𝑅∗𝑆𝑎𝑔
Z = Seismic Zone Factor 13
I = Importance Factor
R = Response Reduction factor
Sa/g = Response Acceleration Coefficient.
W= Seismic Weight of the Building
Seismic Weight (W)
The sum of the seismic weights of the entire floor is the
seismic weight of the whole building. The seismic weight of

each floor is sum of its full dead load and the appropriate
amount of live load or imposed load.
4.2 RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD
Reaction Spectrum Analysis strategy (RSA) ought to be
performed utilizing the plan range by a particularplanrange
of a site, which is explicitly arranged for a structure at the
specific undertaking site.
This strategy is otherwise castled a straight powerful
technique for investigation. In this technique, the seismic
tremor reaction (or Design) range legitimately gives the
pinnacle reaction of a structure during a quake.Forthe basic
plan applications this strategy gives very exact outcomes. In
this technique, various methods of reaction of a structure to
a tremor are considered. At that point for every mode, a
reaction is perused from the structure range, in light of the
modular recurrence and the modular masses. The reactions
of the various modes are then joined to give a gaugeofthe all
out reaction of the structure utilizing the modular blend
techniques, for example, Square foundation of Sum of
Squares (SRSS), Complete Quadratic Combinations(CQC), or
Absolute Sum (ABS) strategy.
4.3 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
Nonlinear dynamic Associate in Nursingalysis utilizes the
combination of ground motion records with an
comprehensive structural model, thus is capable of
producing results with relatively low uncertainty In
nonlinear unique examinations,thecautiousauxiliarymodel
exposed to a ground-movement record produces
assessments of half disfigurements for each level of
opportunity among the model and on the modal responses
square measure combined mistreatment schemes like the
square-root-sum-of-squares.
5. ANALYTICAL MODELING
GENERAL
Seismic analysis codes of the building prescribe the method
of analysis based on whether the building is regular or
irregular. Majority of thecodesrecommendstheuseoflinear
static analysis for symmetric and selected class of regular
buildings. The code suggests the use of dynamic analysis
methods for the irregular configurations of the buildings the
codes of seismic analysis prescribesthe differentmethodsto
carry out lateral load analysis during the analysisanddesign
the infill wall and it's effect is usually ignored. In the
present study, the code for seismic analysis is followed for
the lateral load analysis. ETABS is used for performing the
analysis.
5.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS
Here in this study we have considered 8 models for the
study.
Rigid floor diaphragm models
 Regular model with rigid diaphragm
 Regular model with shear wall in X direction.
 Regular model with shear wall in Y direction.
 Regular model with shear wall in both X & Y
direction
Semi Rigid floor diaphragm models
 Regular model with semi rigid diaphragm
 Regular model with shear wall in X direction.
 Regular model with shear wall in Y direction.
 Regular model with shear wall in both X & Y
direction
 Pushover analysis and time history analysis.
 Select a currentstructurewithstomachbrokenness.
 Design the building as per prevailing Indian
Standard for dead load, live load, and Earthquake
load.
 Analyze the structure utilizing direct/nonlinear
static/powerful examination techniques.
 Analyze the results and arrive at conclusions.

PLAN OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
BUILDING DETAILS:
Type of building Residential Building
No of stories
Total height of building
13 stories
42 m
Thickness of walls
230mm (main wall) and
100mm (partition wall)
Live load
3KN/m2 – Balcony , Corridor
2KN/m2 – All rooms
Grade of Concrete M35
Grade of reinforcing Steel Fe500 , Fe415
Density of brick masonry
8KN/m2 (AAC-Auto aerated
concrete blocks)
Sizes of columns
C1=300mmX600mm
C2=300mmX900mm
C3=300X1050mm
Sizes of beams
Thickness of slab
B1=230X530mm
B2=300X600mm
150mm
Zone II
Soil type II
Importance factor 1.2
Response reduction 5
Seismic zone factor 0.1 for zone II
Damping ratio 5%
MODEL 1: REGULAR MODEL G+ 12 STORIES
Fig 5.1 Plan
Fig 5.2 3D view
MODEL 2: MODEL WITH SHEAR WALL IN X DIRECTIONS
Fig 5.3 Plan

Fig 5.4 3D view
MODEL 3: MODEL WITH SHEAR WALL IN Y DIRECTIONS
Fig 5.5 Plan
Fig 5.6 3D view
MODEL 4: MODEL WITH SHEAR WALL IN X & Y DIRECTIONS
Fig 5.7 Plan
Fig 5.6 3D view
6. ANALYSIS RESULTS
INTRODUCTION:
In this analysis various parameters like base shear, Time
Period, Story Displacement & story drift have been studied
and comparison has been made.

DESIGN SEISMIC BASE SHEAR
Base Shear is only the distinguishing proof of the normal
greatest sidelong powers which can happen asa resultofthe
ground shaking at the base of the structure. The underneath
table demonstrates the estimations of seismic baseshearfor
different models acquired by the 3 distinctive examination
strategies like, ESA, RSA. The base shear hand-off on the
state of the site on which the structure needs to stand and
furthermore the dirt strata which is in charge of moving
burden and bearing the heaps.
MODEL MAXIMUM BASE SHEAR KN
RIGID SEMIRIGID
X-Dir Y-Dir X-Dir Y-Dir
1 1195 5654 734.64 3365.14
2 1460 5876 886.34 3610.78
3 1351 6808 803.89 4028.23
4 1700 7394 1012.78 4415.86
FIG 6.1: BASE SHEAR KN
TIME PERIOD:
It is only the free vibration of the structure which is
undammed. The estimations of time period acquired by
the investigation utilizing etabs. The table demonstrates
that timeframe is progressively changes with the
distinctive investigation technique. As the structure isn't
comparative and henceforth time period fluctuates. It is
seen that model 8 has the most noteworthytimeperiodas
it comprises of Soft story and examination is made with
different estimations of the model.
MODEL TIME PERIOD
RIGID SEMI RIGID
1 1.751 0.984
2 1.477 0.864
3 1.606 0.964
4 1.312 0.8018
FIG 6.2: TIME PERIOD CALACULATION
STORY DISPLACEMENT:
Storey displacement, movement of the story laterally with
respect to the base it is total displacement of its storey with
respect to ground. The different displacement values for the
different models have been plotted and noted below. This
Story displacement is obtained by perfuming analysis using
ETABS with application of different analysisprocedures.It is
seen that the displacement under EQA method is higher
compared to the other two methods for different models, as
the models consists of different aspects like SW, CW & SS.
MODEL MAXIMUM STORY DISPLACEMNT MM
RIGID SEMIRIGID
1 12.915 35.86 7.619 23.748
2 11.965 35.276 7.252 22.654
3 12.352 34.355 7.436 20.56
4 10.963 32.078 6.814 19.078

FIG 6.3: STORY DISPLACEMENT MM
STORY DRIFT:
Story Drift is nothing but the difference in level whichcanbe
above or below in terms of displacements. It is basically
explain as the inner storey movement between two stories.
The drift values are plotted and noted below, these values
are obtained by performing analysis by different methods
using Etabs. It is seen that the drift values differ as the
structure model is changed by adding or positioningofSW&
CW.
MODEL MAXIMUM STORY DRIFT MM
RIGID SEMIRIGID
1 0.000425 0.00111 0.00242 0.00645
2 0.00038 0.00109 0.00225 0.00663
3 0.0004 0.0016 0.00234 0.00614
4 0.00034 0.00098 0.00212 0.00587
FIG 6.4: STORY DRIFT MM
7. CONCLUSIONS
 The investigation done in the present
examination unmistakably demonstrates that
semi-unbending stomach and without stomach
models indicates practically same outcomes
implies we can say nature of without stomach
structures is same of semi inflexible stomach
structure. Also, semi inflexible stomach and
without stomach delivers greater dislodging,
shear power and minutes than the unbending
stomach models.
 Inflexible stomach diminishes dislodging thrice,
minute twice and shears power right aroundone
and half methods it helps in lessening edge
segment and zone of steel.
 For the buildings without shear walls, this study
indicates that the rigid floor model is as accurate
as flexible & semi-rigid model.
 The slabs are observed to act as a deep beam in
transmitting horizontal loads from the slabs to
the columns. Thus, the floor slabs play important
role in transferring the horizontal loads to the
lateral resisting system, i.e. the columns.
 For the buildings with shear walls, the rigid floor
models differ greatly with the flexible floor &
semi – rigid floor models due to the very large
lateral stiffness of the shear wall system.
 It was being observed that the results of flexible
& semi-rigid diaphragm are identical in the cases
mention, but might differ with geometry non –
linearity.
 It is been seen that Rigid Diaphragm is a good
assumptions for Multi-Storeyed (Structures of
greater height) compared to flexible & Semi –
Rigid Diaphragm.
 It is clear that base shear is greater at the centre
of rigidity of the structure compared to end
columns.
 It is reasoned that the structure with inflexible
stomachs will be fundamentally financial coming
about into a lot of sparing in fortification steel.
REFERENCE
 Muto, K. "A seismic structure investigation of
structures”, Marunzen Co., Ltd., Tokyo 241-260,
Japan, 1974.
 Jain, S. K. "Seismic reaction of structures with
adaptable floors", J. Engrg. Mech. ASCE110, 125-

129, 1984.
 Saffarini, H.; Qudaimat, M., “In-plane floor
disfigurements in RC structures, "Diary of
Structural Engineering, vol. 118, No. 11, 3089-
3102, 1992.
 Ju, S.H.; Lin, M .C. "Examination of structure
investigations accepting inflexible or adaptable
floors," J.Struct. Engrg. ASCE 125, 25-39, 1999.
 R.B. Fleischman; K.T. Farrow, "Dynamic conduct
of edge parallel framework structures with
adaptable stomachs", Earthquake designing and
auxiliary elements 2001; 30:745-763.
 Kai Hu, Yimeng Yang, Suifeng Mu, Ge Qu , Study
on High-ascent Structure with Oblique Columns
by ETABS,
 SivakumaranK.S. furthermore,
BalendraT.,Seismic investigation of asyMMetric
multistorey structures including establishment
collaboration and P-Δ impacts, Engineering
Structures, 16(8), November 1994, Pages 609–
624.
 Kunnath S., Panahshahi N., and Reinhorn A.,
Seismic Response of RC Buildings with Inelastic
Floor Diaphragms, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 117(4), April 1991, pp. 1218–1237
BIOGRAPHIES
Student Civil Engineering, Faculty
of Engineering & Technology (Co-
Education) Sharnbasva University
Asst. Prof, Civil Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering &
Technology (Co-Education)
Sharnbasva University kalaburagi,
karnataka, India

IRJET- Seismic Effect of Rigid Floor Diaphragm

Related slideshows

More Related Content

IRJET- Seismic Effect of Rigid Floor Diaphragm