International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN:2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 05 | May 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN:2395-0072
LATERAL RESPONSE
VARIATIONS IN REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES WITH DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONCRETE
Sandeep Kumar1, Mr. Ushendra Kumar2
1Master of Technology, Civil Engineering, Lucknow Institute of Technology, Lucknow, India
2Head of Department, Department of Civil Engineering, Lucknow Institute of Technology, Lucknow, India
Abstract - This research paper presents a comparative analysis of four precast structural models subjected to dynamic loading, following IS 1893 Part 1:2016 guidelines. Using ETABS software, we developed four models with varying concrete grades: the first with all elements (beam, column, and slab) in M25-grade concrete; the second with beams and columns in M40-grade and the slab in M25grade; the third with all elements in M40-grade; and the fourth with beams and slabs in M40-grade and columns in M25-grade. Through dynamic analysis, we evaluated each model's seismic response, focusing on parameters like natural frequencies, mode shapes, and structural displacements. The study reveals the impact of different concrete grade combinations on the seismic performance of precast structures, providing insights to enhance their designandresilienceagainstseismicforces.
Key Words: Lateralresponse,Reinforcedconcreteframes, Concretetypes,Seismicperformance,Structuralresilience, PrecastConcrete.
1.INTRODUCTION
Reinforcedconcrete(RC)frames have beena cornerstone of structural engineering, known for their durability, strength, and adaptability in various applications. Traditionally, normal concrete (NC) has been used in RC frames due to its accessibility and established performancecharacteristics.However,withadvancements in construction techniques, precast concrete (PC) has gained traction for its efficiency in reducing on-site construction time, minimizing material wastage, and offering enhanced quality control. Despite these advantages, the lateral response of RC frames, a critical factor in ensuring structural stability during dynamic loading scenarios such as earthquakes and wind forces, may vary significantly between normal and precast concrete.Thisvariationstemsfromdifferencesinmaterial properties,constructionjoints,andtheinherentstructural continuity of the two systems. Understanding these differences is essential to optimize design strategies and ensure safety, particularly in high-seismic or loadintensive environments. Thisresearchseeksto bridgethe knowledgegapbyinvestigatingandcomparingthelateral responsevariationsinRCframesconstructedwithNCand PC.
2. REINFORCED CONCRETE (RC) FRAMES IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Reinforced concrete frames are fundamental to modern structural engineering, providing the primary loadbearing skeleton for a wide range of buildings and infrastructure. RC frames owe their widespread adoption totheirversatility,combiningthecompressivestrengthof concrete with the tensile strength of steel reinforcement. This synergy allows for enhanced load-carrying capacity and durability, making them a standard choice for both residentialandcommercialstructures.ThebehaviorofRC frames under various loading conditions, particularly lateral forces such as wind and seismic activity, is pivotal inensuringtheirsafetyandfunctionality.
2.1.Traditional Use of Normal Concrete (NC)
Normal concrete has long been the default material for constructing RC frames due to its availability, ease of handling, and predictable mechanical properties. It is typically mixed and poured on-site, which facilitates construction in varied conditions but can also lead to inconsistencies in quality due to environmental or operational variables. Despite these challenges, NC remains a robust material, particularly in static or lowdynamicloadingenvironments.However,itsperformance underlateralloading,wherestiffness,ductility,andenergy dissipation become critical, demands meticulous design considerations.
2.2.Emergence of Precast Concrete (PC)
Precast concrete introduces a paradigm shift in construction practices by manufacturing concrete components off-site under controlled conditions. These precast elements are transported to the construction site and assembled, resulting in faster project timelines, reduced labor costs, and superior quality control. PC has garnered increasing interest for its potential to address urbanization-driven construction demands efficiently. However, PC systems differ structurally from NC systems duetothepresenceofconstructionjointsandconnectors, which can influence the overall lateral behavior of the frame.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN:2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 05 | May 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN:2395-0072
2.3.Significance of Lateral Response in Structural Stability
The lateral response of a structure its behavior under horizontal forceslikeseismic loadsorwind pressures is a critical determinant of safety and serviceability. In RC frames, this involves parameters such as lateral stiffness, strength,andductility,whichensurethatthestructurecan withstand dynamic loading without experiencing catastrophic failure. NC and PC systems inherently respond differently to such loads due to differences in continuity, material homogeneity, and connection integrity. The integrity of these responses is particularly vital in high-risk zones where lateral loads are predominant.
3.CHALLENGES AND THE NEED FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Despite their growing adoption, precast concrete systems remain under-researched compared to conventional normal concrete systems, particularly in terms of their lateral response in RC frames. Construction joints in PC frames can act as potential weak points, raising concerns aboutstiffnessdegradationanddisplacementundercyclic or dynamic loading. In contrast, NC systems, while structurally continuous, may lack the precision and uniformity that PC systems offer. A systematic comparativeanalysisofthesetwomaterialsisessentialto understand their relative performance, inform design decisions, and guide the development of standards that optimize both safety and efficiency in RC frame construction.
By dissecting these aspects, the background provides a robust foundation for the research, highlighting the importance of lateral response and the necessity of this comparativestudy.
4.LITERATURE REVIEW
4.1.Overview
of Reinforced Concrete Frames
Reinforced concrete (RC) frames are one of the most widely used structural systems due to their ability to withstandbothverticalandlateralloadseffectively.These systems combine steel reinforcement for tensile strength andconcreteforcompressivestrength,creatinga durable and versatile construction method. Common applications include residential buildings, commercial structures, and infrastructureprojectssuchasbridgesandtunnels.
4.2.Advantages of Normal Concrete and Precast Concrete
Normal concrete (NC) in RC frames provides flexibility in construction, allowing on-site customization. This
adaptability makes it ideal for complex designs or retrofittinginconstrainedenvironments.
Precast concrete (PC), on the other hand, offers factorycontrolled quality, reducing defects and enhancing durability. Its modular nature accelerates construction timelines and minimizes material wastage. However, PC systemsfacechallengesinachievingmonolithicstructural continuity,andconstructionjointsmayactasweakpoints undercertainloadingconditions(Bogdanetal.,2021).
4.3.Lateral
Response in Structural Systems
ThelateralresponseofRCframesisacriticalperformance metric, particularlyunderseismic and windloads. Lateral stiffness, ductility, and energy dissipation capabilities define a structure's ability to withstand horizontal forces withoutsignificantdeformationorfailure.
4.3.1.Factors Influencing Lateral Responses
Material Properties: The strength, stiffness, and damping characteristics of the concrete and reinforcement play a significant role in determining thelateralresponse(Dolceetal.,2007).
Construction Techniques: The assembly method whether in-situ casting for NC or modular assembly for PC affects joint performance and overall stability(Filippou&Issa,1988).
Load Distribution and Connections: In precast systems, connections such as dowels, welding, and boltingsignificantlyinfluencethelateralperformance compared to NC, which benefits from seamless continuity(Bogdanetal.,2021).
4.3.2.Role of Material Properties and Construction Techniques
Studieshave highlightedthatmaterial homogeneity in NC contributestobetterenergydissipationundercyclicloads. However, PC systems, despite their modular advantages, may experience localized stress concentrations at joints, impacting their ductility and stiffness under lateral loading(Zameeruddin&Sangle,2016).
4.4.PRECAST
CONCRETE IN STRUCTURAL DESIGN
4.4.1.Recent Advancements
The development of high-performance precast materials, such as self-compacting concrete and fiber-reinforced composites, has enhanced the applicability of PC in RC frames. Innovations in connection design, such as hybrid steel-concrete joints, have also improved the seismic resilienceofPCsystems(Mosallam,2000).
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN:2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 05 | May 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN:2395-0072
4.4.2.Studies Comparing Precast and Conventional Concrete Systems
Recentcomparativestudieshavedemonstratedthatwhile PCsystemsexcelinconstructionspeedandenvironmental benefits, they require more sophisticated engineering for joint integrity to match the monolithic behavior of NC (Bogdan etal.,2021).Similarly,the lateral responseof PC systems,whendesignedwithadvancedjointtechnologies, can rival that of NC in seismic zones, but at a higher upfrontcost(Dolceetal.,2007).
5.METHODOLOGY
Inthissectionofthemethodology,wewillstudyaboutthe materials,detailsthemodels,methodusedfortheanalysis of the models, details view of the models, and load acting onthemodels.
5.1.Load on the Models.
There are four models which created with the help of the ETABSSoftwareandsubjectedtothedifferenttypeofthe loading such as the self-weight of the structure, imposed loadonthemodels,finishingloadonthemodelsaswellas seismicloadinBothXaswellasY-DirectionbytheIndian StandardCode1893part1:2016.
5.2: Indian Standard Code
In this research work, we have used different Indian Standard Code for different purpose such as for the self weightofthestructureusedIS875part-1,fortheimposed loadonthestructureusedIS875part2,fortheRCCwork used IS 456, and for the earthquake load used IS 1893 part-1.
5.3.Software
ETABS (Extended Three-Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems) is a powerful structural analysis and design software widely used for multi-story buildings. It integrates modeling, analysis, and design capabilities for steel, concrete, and composite structures. Known for its user-friendlyinterface,ETABSsupportsseismic,wind,and dynamic load simulations, making it ideal for designing high-rise buildings and ensuring compliance with internationalcodesandstandards.
5.4.Method
of Analysis
Time history analysis in ETABS is a dynamic analysis technique used to evaluate the structural response of buildings under time-dependent loads, such as earthquakesorothertransientforces.Itinvolvesapplying ground motion records or synthetic time histories to simulate real-world conditions. This method captures detailed behavior like displacement, acceleration, and
internal forces, providing insights into the structure's performanceduringseismicevents.
6.ANALYSIS
OF RESULT
Inthissection,wewillanalysetheresultwhichcomeafter analysis of these four models in the etabs software by using the dynamic analysis, the result are given below at thedifferentparameter:
6.1.Lateral
force on the Model
AsperIS1893Part1(IndianStandardCodeofPracticefor Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures), the fundamental parameter to ascertain the seismic forces acting on a structure during an earthquake is the base shear. This parameter signifies the overall lateral force applied to the base of the structure due to ground movement. The calculation of base shear involves the considerationofthestructure'smassandtheacceleration ofthe ground movement.It isutilizedinthedesign ofthe structure's lateral load-resisting systems, including shear walls,bracing systems, and moment-resisting frames.The value of the lateral force are given below at the load case EX:
Graph-1: Base Shear at the load Case EX.
From the above graph, we cansee thatmaximum value is existinginthemodel-3.
6.2.Fundamental Period of the Models
The fundamental period of a structure denotes the minimum natural period of vibration experienced by the structureunderexternalforces.Thisperiodisdetermined by various factors such as the mass, stiffness, and geometry of the structure. As per IS Code 1893 part1:2016, the natural period for structures up to G+20 should fall within the range of 0.05 seconds to 2.00 seconds,whilestructuresuptoG+30shouldhaveaperiod exceeding3.00seconds.Thetableandgraphdepictingthe naturalperiodareprovidedbelowforreference.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN:2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 05 | May 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN:2395-0072
Graph-2: Fundamental Period of the Models
Fromtheabovegraph,wecanseethatmaximumvalueof thefundamentalperiodisinthemodel-1.
6.3.Lateral Displacement of Models
As per the provisions of IS 1893 (Part 1):2016, the permissible storey displacement is contingent upon the seismic zone and the structural type. The standard delineates distinct thresholds for structures with ductile detailing and those without. In accordance with IS Code 1893 part-1: 2016, the maximum allowable storey displacementmustnotexceedH/250,whereHrepresents theoverallstructureheightinmillimeters.Forinstance,in thecaseofa G+20reinforcedconcrete edifice witha total height of 63500mm, the storey displacement should not surpass 254mm. The graph of the lateral displacement at theloadcaseEXaregivenbelow:
Graph-3: Storey Displacements of the Models at Load Case EX.
From the above graph of the lateral displacement, the maximumvalueisinthemodel-1attheloadcaseEX.
7.CONCLUSION
In this section of the conclusion, we have studied the result of four models which are analyzed in the ETABS software by using the Time History Analysis. As we have discussed in the above section, we have taken those parameter, and on the basis of those parameter, we will analyzetheresultofthemodels:
With reference to the graph of the base shear of the models at the load case EX, the maximum value on the model-03 (where beam, column, and slab are build with M40gradeoftheconcrete),andminimuminthemodel-01 (wherebeam,column,andslabisbuildwithM25gradeof the concrete). The value of base shear of the model-03 is 12.465 percent higher than model-01 at the top floor of thestructure.
With reference to the graph of the natural period of the models, model-01 have maximum natural period as compared to the all models, and minimum natural period in the model-03. 12.443 percent higher natural period in the model-01 as compared to the model-03. We can see that the value of the natural period within the range accordingtoISCode1893part1:2016.
With reference to the graph of storey displacement of the models at the load case EX, the maximum storey displacement in the model-01 that is 18.412 mm, and minimum in the model-03 that is 16.375 mm. The 12.440 percent high storey displacement in the models-01 as comparedtothemodel-03.Similarlyallvalueofthestorey displacementattheloadcaseEYforallmodels.
REFERENCE
1. A. A. Elansary, M. I. Metwally, and A. G. El-Attar, “Structural system yielding minimum differences between ordinary and staged analyses,” Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, vol. 70, no. 1, Jun. 2023,doi:10.1186/s44147-023-00243-3.
2. A. Gu, Y. Zhou, Y. Lu, Q. Yang, R. S. Henry, and G. W. Rodgers, “Planar frame models considering system‐level interactions of a two‐story low‐damage concrete wall building,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 52, no. 14, pp. 4325–4351, Jun.2023,doi:10.1002/eqe.3954.
3. K. Al-Bukhaiti et al., “Effect of the axial load on the dynamic response of the wrapped CFRP reinforced concrete column under the asymmetrical lateral impact load,” PLoS ONE, vol. 18, no. 6, p. e0284238, Jun.2023,doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284238.
4. F. Nugroho, N. Zaidir, J. Tanjung, and N. Maidiawati, “Comparative Analysis on Lateral Strength of MultiSpan RC Frame with Different Types of Infill Walls,”
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN:2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 05 | May 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN:2395-0072
IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 1173, no. 1, p. 012011, May 2023, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1173/1/012011.
5. A.Chen,Y.Liu,R.Ma,andX.Zhou,“Experimentaland Numerical Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Columns under Lateral Impact Loading,” Buildings, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 708, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.3390/buildings13030708.
6. A. E. Yeganeh, “Structural behaviour of reinforced high performance concrete frames subjected to monotonic lateral loading,” Ryerson University, Jun. 2021,doi:10.32920/ryerson.14653914.v1.
7. X. Li, Y. Yin, T. Li, X. Zhu, and R. Wang, “Analytical Study on Reinforced Concrete Columns and Composite Columns under Lateral Impact,” Coatings, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 152, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/coatings13010152.
8. M. Algamati, A. Al-Sakkaf, E. M. Abdelkader, and A. Bagchi, “Studying and analyzing the seismic performance of concrete Moment-Resisting frame buildings,” CivilEng,vol.4,no.1,pp.34–54,Jan.2023, doi:10.3390/civileng4010003.
9. S. Avğin and M. M. Köse, “Simplified nonlinear analysis of RC columns exposed to lateral loads,” Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1113–1126, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.21605/cukurovaumfd.1230959.
10. A.M.Merwad,A.A.El-Sisi,S.a.A.Mustafa,andH.E.D.M.Sallam,“LateralimpactresponseofRubberizedFibrous Concrete-Filled Steel tubular columns: Experiment and numerical study,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1566, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3390/buildings12101566.
11. I.Sococol,P.Mihai,T.-C.Petrescu,F.Nedeff,V.Nedeff, andM.Agop,“AnalyticalStudyRegardingtheSeismic Response of a Moment-Resisting (MR) Reinforced Concrete (RC) Frame System with Reduced Cross SectionsoftheRCBeams,” Buildings,vol.12,no.7,p. 983,Jul.2022,doi:10.3390/buildings12070983.
12. G. Tunc, M. M. Othman, and H. C. Mertol, “Finite ElementAnalysisofFrameswithReinforcedConcrete EncasedSteelCompositeColumns,” Buildings,vol.12, no. 3, p. 375, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.3390/buildings12030375.
13. N.MaidiawatiandJ.Tanjung,“Theseismic responses of RC frames infilled with full and partial masonry walls under cyclic lateral load,” IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 708, no. 1, p.
012079, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1088/17551315/708/1/012079.
14. S.S.B.S.KumarandG.V.R.Rao,“Seismicanalysisof Reinforced concrete frames with stiffness irregularity,” IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 1025, no. 1, p. 012031, Jan. 2021,doi:10.1088/1757-899x/1025/1/012031.
15. W. Sae-Long, S. Limkatanyu, C. Hansapinyo, T. Imjai, and Mi. Kwon, “Forced-based shear-flexureinteraction frame element for nonlinear analysis of non-ductile reinforced concrete columns,” Applied and Computational Mechanics, vol. 6, pp. 1151–1167, Dec.2020,doi:10.22055/jacm.2020.32731.2065.
16. N.R.R.Mahorkar,“TheEffectofLateralConnectionin Moment Carrying Capacity of Frame in RC High Rise Structure using Pushover Analysis,” International Journal of Engineering Research And, vol. V9, no. 08, Aug.2020,doi:10.17577/ijertv9is080158.
17. D. K. Kishorbhai, “Response of RCC Asymmetric building subjected to earthquake ground motions,” IJERT,Sep.2019,doi:10.17577/IJERTV8IS070355.
18. K. Senthil, S. Muthukumar, S. Rupali, and K. S. Satyanarayanan, “Effect of Various Interface Thicknesses on the Behaviour of Infilled frame Subjected to Lateral Load,” IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 330, p. 012113, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1088/1757899x/330/1/012113.
2025, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.315 | ISO 9001:2008