This document compares the seismic performance of reinforced concrete (RC) frames and composite frames with irregular floor plans located in an earthquake zone. 12 models of G+10 story buildings were analyzed (6 RC and 6 composite) using ETABS software. The models had different irregular floor plan configurations including C-shaped, U-shaped, L-shaped, T-shaped, plus-shaped and hollow shapes. Response spectrum analysis was performed. Results for time period, base shear, story shear, displacements, drifts and axial forces were compared between the RC and composite frames. The composite frames showed lower time periods, displacements, drifts and axial forces compared to the RC frames, but higher base shear and story shear due to their

1. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 10 | Oct 2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 335
Seismic Performance of RC & Composite Frames with Plan Irregular
Configurations
Naveen Kumar C N1, Ramesh B M2, P S Ramesh3
1M.tech final year student, Department of Civil, SJBIT College Bengaluru, Karnataka.
2Assistant Professor Department of Civil, SJBIT College Bengaluru, Karnataka.
3Associate Professor Department of Civil, SJBIT College Bengaluru, Karnataka.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Steel-Concrete composite structures are very
popular & have their advantages over Concrete constructions.
Concrete structures are bulky and have more seismic weight
and more deflection as comparetoCompositeConstruction, &it
combines the better properties of both steel andconcretealong
with lesser cost, speedy construction, fire protection etc. The
aim of the present study is to compare seismic performance of
plan irregular configurations of RC, and Composite building
frame which is situated in earthquake zone IV. Total numberof
12 models been modeled(6 RC & 6 Composite) all models are of
G+10 storey buildings. All frames are designed forsame gravity
loadings. Beam and column sections are made of Either RCC
and Structural Steel-concrete composite sections. Response
Spectrum method are used for seismic analysis. Effect of each
building is studied with respect to time period, base shear,
storey shear, displacements, drift & axial force. ETABS-2015
Software is used for analysis and results are compared.
Key Words: Composite Beam, Composite Column,
Response spectrum method, ETABS
1.INTRODUCTION
At the present time, many of multi-storey (residential &
commercial) buildings have open storeys as salient feature.
The composite materials were commonly used for multi-
storey, industrial buildings or in bridges. The composite
structures are made of different materials and they are
compatible and complementary to each other, the composite
structures have same extension both for thermal & applied
loads. The combination of the steel and RCC will have higher
strength as steel will take tension forces andtheconcrete will
take compression forces. The concrete also gives corrosion
protection and thermal insulation to the steel at elevated
temperatures and additionally can restrain slender steel
sections from local or lateral-torsional buckling.
1.1 OBJECTIVES
The present work done for bothRC&Compositestructurethe
total number of model considered is 12 (6 RCC & 6 Steel
Composite) with the number of storey as 11, which was in
zone 4, & the soil type taken is medium soil.
I. To analysis the multi storeyed frame of irregular
plan of both R.C and Composite frames.
II. To perform Equivalent analysis & Response
Spectrum Analysis.
III. To study the performance of both R.C and composite
frame w.r.t. different parameters such as story
displacement, story drift, base shear, story shear,
time period & axial force.
2 STRUCTURAL MODELLING
On the analysis a building has been Modeled for G+10
storey building and analysed inETABSsoftware. Twokindsof
the structures were considered one is RCC structure with
column of 0.4x0.5m from 1 -5th floor & 0.3x0.4m from 6-11th
floor and beam of 300x350mm kept constant forall thefloors
and slab of 175mm. And another one is steel composite
structure with column of 0.4x0.5m at 1st floor & 0.3x0.4m
encased ISHB250 from 2nd -11th floor and beam of
250x350mm and slab of 175mm.
3. DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL MODEL
Various parameters such as a number of storeys, the
dimension of structural members, storey height, load
intensities are mentioned below.
Table -1: Description of model
Number of
Storeys
G+10 Reduction
Factor
5
Building Frame
system
SMRF Importance
Factor
1.5
Storey Height 3m Grade of
Concrete
M25
Seismic Zone Zone 4 Grade of Steel Fe500
Type of Soil Medium Live load 3 kN/m2
4. TYPES OF MODELS
Model 1- Re- entrant Corner (C- shaped RCC & Steel
Composite)
Model 2- Re- entrant Corner (U- shaped RCC & Steel
Composite)
Model 3- Re- entrant Corner (L- shaped RCC & Steel
Composite)

2. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 10 | Oct 2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 336
Model 4- Re- entrant Corner (T- shaped RCC & Steel
Composite)
Model 5- Re- entrant Corner (Plus- shaped RCC & Steel
Composite)
Model 6- Diaphragm Discontinuity (Hollow- shaped RCC &
Steel Composite)
Fig-1: Different types of Models
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 TIME PERIOD
Table-2: Time period of both RC & Composite
Fig-2: Time period of both RC & Composite
Its observed that mode 1, 2 & 3 of all models of RC building
shows slightly higher frequency, than the mode 1, 2 & 3 of all
models of Steel composite building.
5.2 BASE SHEAR
Table-3: Base Shear of both RC & Composite
Fig-3: Base Shear of both RC & Composite
The results show that the response obtain in the form of base
shear may be due to various earthquakesismoreincaseofthe
RC building when compare to the composite building.
5.3 STOREY DISPLACEMENT
Table-4: Displacements in X directions of both RC &
Composite

3. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 10 | Oct 2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 337
Fig-4: Displacements in X directions of both RC &
Composite
The displacements of all models in X directions. From the
results its observed that the model 3 model 1 & model 4 of
composite building shows the higher displacements. The
maximum deflection is occurred in the upper most floor & its
less than 40mm(the deflections were within limits as
prescribed by IS codes)
Table-5: Displacements in Y directions of both RC &
Composite
Fig-5: Displacements in Y directions of both RC &
Composite
The displacements of all models in Y directions. From the
results its observed that the model 3 model 1 & model 4of
composite building shows the higher displacements. The
maximum deflection is occurred in the upper most floor & its
less than 40mm(the deflections were within limits as
prescribed by IS codes)
5.4 STOREY DRIFTS
Table-6: Drifts in X directions of both RC & Composite
Fig-6: Driftss in X directions of both RC & Composite
The drifts of all models in X directions. From the results its
observed that the model 4, model 2 & model 3 of composite
building shows the higher drifts. The maximum deflection is

4. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 10 | Oct 2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 338
occurred in the upper most floor & its less than 40mm(the
deflections were within limits as prescribed by IS codes)
Table-7: Drifts in Y directions of both RC & Composite
Fig-7: Drifts in Y directions of both RC & Composite
The drifts of all models in Y directions. From the
results its observed that the model 3 model 1 & model 4 of
composite building shows the higher drifts. The maximum
deflection is occurred in the upper most floor & its less than
40mm(the deflections were within limits as prescribed by IS
codes)
5.5 AXIAL FORCE
The axial force of RC building has got high value when it was
compared with Composite building.
Table-8: Axial Force of both RC & Composite
Fig-8: Axial Force of both RC & Composite
6. CONCLUSIONS
1. There are slight changes in time period of both RC &
composite buildings, RC buildings has more frequency
when compared with composite buildings.
2. Base shear values aremoreforcomposite buildings when
compared with RC buildings. Because seismic weight of
Composite materials, when compared with RC buildings.
3. Base shear and storey shear of composite buildings is
high, due to more seismic weight of the building.
4. In the displacements of both RC & Composite structures
of all models, it is observed that in few models of the
structure has discontinuity in X direction & has less
number of bays than in Y direction. Therefore, structure
in Y direction is stiffer than X direction. Similarly in the
remaining models, Y direction has got discontinuity, so X
direction is stiffer than Y direction.
5. The displacements of all plan irregularmodelsisfoundto
be within the limits as per IS 1893-2002.
6. The storey drift of the RC building is less as compared to
composite building, and all framesarewithinpermissible
limit of 0.004 times the storey height, as prescribed in IS
1893-2002.
7. Drift variations are observed for both RC and composite
buildings which may be due to differential size of
columns.
8. It is observed that the RC buildings have more axial force
than the composite buildings.

5. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 10 | Oct 2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 339
REFERENCES
[1] J.M. Castro, A.Y. Elghazouli and B.A. Izzuddin,
“Performance Assessment Of Composite Moment-Resisting
Frames”. 29th the 14th world conference on earthquake
engineering, Beijing, China october 12-17, 2008
[2] D. R. Panchal and P. M. Marathe, “Comparative Study of
R.C.C, Steel and Composite (G+30 Storey) Building ”,
Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad – 382
481, December, 2011.
[3] Anish N. Shah, Dr. P.S. Pajgade “Comparision of R.C.C. And
Composite Multistoried Buildings” International Journal of
Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-
9622 Vol. 3, Issue 2, March -April 2013, pp.534-539
[4] Nitin m. Warade, P. J. Salunke; “Comparative Study On
Analysis And Design Of Composite Structure” International
Journal Of Advance Research In Science And Engineering Vol.
No.2, Issue No.12, December, 2013 ISSN-2319-8354(E).
[5] Shashikala. Koppad, Dr. S.V.Itti“ComparativeStudyof RCC
and CompositeMultistoreyedBuildings”International Journal
of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT) Volume 3,
Issue 5, November 2013
[6] Prof. Prakarsh Sangave, Mr. Nikhil Madur, Mr. Sagar
Waghmare, Mr. Rakesh Shete, Mr. Vinayak Mankondi, Mr.
Vinayak Gundla “ComparativeStudyofAnalysisandDesignof
R.C. and Steel Structures” International Journal of Scientific&
Engineering Research,Volume6,Issue2,February-2015 ISSN
2229-5518
[7] Prof. Swapnil B. Cholekar1, Basavalingappa S. M.
“Comparative Analysis Of Multistoried Rcc And Composite
Building Due To Mass Irregularity” Volume: 02 Issue: 04 |
July-2015
[8] Tabassum G Shirhatti, Dr. S. B. Vanakudre “The Effects Of
P-Delta And Construction Sequential Analysis Of Rcc And
Steel Building With Respect To Linear Static Analysis”
Volume: 02 Issue: 04 | July-2015
[9] S.R.Sutar, P.M.Kulkarni Civil Engg. “Comparative inelastic
analysis of RCC and steel-concrete composite frame” e-ISSN:
2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 13, Issue 4 Ver. IV
(Jul. - Aug. 2016), PP 22-32.
[10] Ankur Tailora Sejal P. Dalalb* Atul K.Desai Sardar
Vallabhbhai “Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel
Column Building & Concrete Filled Tube Column Building
under Static and Dynamic Loading” Procedia Engineering
173( 2017) 1847 – 1853.
[11] Deepak M Jirage, Prof. V.G. Sayagavi, Prof. N.G. Gore,
Prof.P.J.Salunke “Comparison of R.C.C. And Composite
Multistoried Buildings” Deepak M Jirage.et.al. Int. Journal of
Engineering ResearchandApplication. ISSN :2248-9622,Vol.
7, Issue 7, ( Part -2) July 2017, pp.42-45.
[12] Mohd Amir Khan “Comparative Study of R.C.C &
Structural Steel -Concrete Composite Frame for Linear and
Non-Linear Analysis” International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 07 | July -2017
[13] IS:456, Code of practice for plainandreinforcedconcrete
code of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
2000.
[14] IS:1893, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures - general provisions forbuildings,Part1,Bureauof
Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.
[15] IS:875, “code of practice for design load (other than
earthquake) for buildings and structures” Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 2002.
[16] IS:800, Code of practice for general construction insteel,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2007.