STUDY AND COMPARISON OF STRUCTURE HAVING DIFFERENT INFILL MATERIALS USING ETABS

Abstract

Reinforcement concrete structure frame system widely used around the world. In building structure, structure element is generally taken as Beam, column, foundation. The dead & live load is transferred from beam to column, column to footing then ultimately load distributed into the soil. The wall load is taken by beam. In building design, we mentioned the whole wall on the beam is possible, if it is not possible, we taken concealed beam into the slab below the wall. During the analysis of frame structure, we consider wall as non-structural element. But including walls in the structure analysis is play important role. This study deals with the examination of the impact of infill in structure and their behaviour in structure. In present situation high rise building constructed with the various type of infill wall materials. Some of them generally use for example red brick, AAC wall, Hollow concrete block, lightweight Aluminium & Steel panels. So three types of models are created on ETABS software. In this study 9 storey high rise building is designed in ETABS with taking 3 infill materials like Fly Ash brick, AAC block and Hollow concrete block taken for study which on the most critical earthquake zone IV analysis (Dynamic) is done using ETABS, soil properties assumed medium and importance factor is taken 1.2 . The all three infill wall models compare with the basic design parameter like moment, shear force, displacement. The all three models that I passed under seismic loading helped me to reach the conclusion on how all three models perform in the case of seismic loading. And by comparing the percentage growth in the displacement and storey drift we can decide the most efficient building. Because the AAC block has the lowest density hence it should have the least moment generated compared to other bricks almost 20-30 percent difference is expected. And the model with Strut member should have least deflection compared to other models. The difference of 15-20 percent is expected atleast. Keywords: ETABS, Structural Analysis, masonry infill, RC frame, earthquake, displacement, drift, base shear, AAC blocks, Hollow concrete block, Bending moment, Diagonal Strut