Beta Fulltext view is in preview — article structure may vary. Browse all articles
Contents
Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology Open Access Research Article 11 min read

Comparative Study on Seismic Performance of Steel Building & Composite Building with CFT & CFST Column

Suganth G*
* Corresponding author
ISSN: 2574-187X  10.23880/nnoa-16000225  Received: November 29, 2022  Published: February 01, 2023
 — views
 25 references
 4 figures
 10 tables
PDF
Keywords
CFT CFT with Stiffeners CFDST Hollow CFDST Column Response Spectrum Method H/T Ratio Displacement Total Tonnage
Abstract

In this paper a comparative study is done on Steel building & Composite building with CFT, CFT with stiffeners, CFDST Hollow & CFDST column. Seismic Analysis of (B+G+9) building is done in both Equivalent Static method & Response Spectrum method using ETABS software & Optimum Composite column is obtained from Parameter 1 (Steel Ratio, Buckling Load, Plastic Resistance, H/T Ratio), Parameter 2 (Displacement, Story Drift, Base Shear, Overturning Moment, Story Stiffness), Parameter3 (Moment of Inertia, C/S Area, Total Weight, Total Tonnage).

Introduction

  • In-present, composite structures are becoming more popular in INDIA due to the benefits in structural performance and construction sequence.
  • Due to the adoption & advancement of composite structures, the buildings are becoming more slender, having longer span, has increase in stiffness and Buckling Load, has Reduction in total Tonnage and C/S Area of the composite column than R.C.C and Steel column and the performance is good in case of earthquake conditions.
  • CFT (Concrete Filled Tubes) column is a type of composite column, where local buckling is delayed by concrete core & buckling load of concrete is increased by the confinement effect of steel tube.
  • CFT with stiffeners is same as CFT column but this column has additional steel plates in longitudinal or transversal direction of the column, this addition of steel plate is to increase the stiffness of composite column by increasing the steel ratio of the column.
  • CFDST Hollow (Concrete Filled Double Skin Tubes) is a creative innovation which is formed by two layers of steel tube which is embedded by a concrete layer between these steel tubes. The second layer of steel tube is left hollow to reduce the C/A area & weight of the column. It has additional advantages like high strength, high stiffness, good seismic and fire performance.
  • CFDST column is same as the above column, but the second layer of steel tube is filled with high strength concrete or same grade of concrete as of the embedded concrete.
  • This type of column is normally used when the building has very high axial load which is commonly used in High- Rised building.
  • The design of composite slab & composite column is done as per Eurocode 4.

Objective

  • To Study the characteristics and structural performance of building with inclusion of CFT (Concrete Filled Tubes), CFT with Stiffeners, CFDST Hollow & CFDST (Concrete Filled double Skin Tubes) columns.
  • To analyse the building in Response Spectrum method.
  • To obtain the effective performance of different composite column using Parameter 1 (Buckling Load, Plastic Resistance, H/T Ratio, Steel Ratio) & Parameter 2 (Displacement, Story Drift, Base Shear, Overturning moment, Stiffness) in ETABS.
  • To find the Optimum Tonnage for different types of columns.

Scope

• Analytical study on the Seismic performance of Composite building with CFT (Concrete Filled Tubes), CFT with Stiffeners, CFDST Hollow & CFDST (Concrete Filled Double Skin Tubes) composite columns & comparing with Steel building by Response Spectrum method.

Methodology

  • Literature survey.
  • Using different types of Composite column by changing its inner tube dimension (75,100,150,200,250,300mm) & thickness of tubes (i.e., column with same inner & outer tube dimension (ST), column with thick inner & thin outer tube dimension (IT), column with thin inner & thick outer tube dimension (OT)) [1].
  • Seismic Analysis of the model by both Equivalent Static Method & Response Spectrum Method is performed in ETABS [2].
  • The considered parameters are, Parameter 1(Buckling Load, Plastic Resistance, H/T Ratio, Steel Ratio), Parameter 2(Displacement, Storey Drift, Base Shear, overturning moment, Stiffness), Parameter 3(C/S Area, Total Tonnage) [3].
  • Obtaining the Optimum column with respect to different parameters [4].

Structural System

Steel Structure: The structural system consists of Steel Beams, Deck Slabs, Steel Columns, Footing and RC core. Transfer Girders will be supporting the floors which is cantilever [5]. Composite Structure: The structural system consists of Steel Beams, Deck Slabs, CFT, CFT with Stiffeners, CFDST Hollow & CFDST Composite Columns with different steel ratio, Footing and RC Core. Transfer Girders will be supporting the floors which is cantilever (Table 1).

Steel Grade for Steel BuildingSteel Grade for Composite Building
ColumnsFe350S355
BeamFe350Fe350
Deck SlabFe350Fe350
Inclined MemberFe350Fe350

Table 1: Grade of Steel.

Design Methodology

All Steel structures are designed according to the Limit State Method as specified in IS 800:2007 and the Deck Slab is designed as per ASCI 360-16. Composite column is manually designed as per Euro code 4. Appropriate loads and its combination for the building are considered as per relevant IS codes [6].

Earthquake Load

The loading due to earthquake is assumed based on the provisions of IS1893:2016 considering seismic zone – III [7].

Design factors:

  • Zone factor, Z = 0.16
  • Importance Factor, I = 1.5 (Hospital Building)
  • Response reduction factor, R = 4.0 (Steel Building)
  • Response reduction factor, R = 4.0 (Composite Building)
  • Damping Ratio= 5%

Beam and Column Orientation

The beams and columns are orientated based on the shear force and bending moment diagrams. The orientation for typical floor & 3D View is as follows (Tables 2-6):

Figure 1: 3D View.
Click to enlarge
Figure 1: 3D View.
Figure 2: Design of Beam & Column in Building.
Click to enlarge
Figure 2: Design of Beam & Column in Building.

Different Types of Composite Column

CFT- Concrete Filled Tube CFT(S)- Concrete Filled Tube with Stiffeners CFDST Hollow- Concrete Filled Double Skin Tube with inner Hollow (ST1)- CFDST Hollow of same thickness (IT1)- CFDST Hollow of Inner thick Tube (OT1)- CFDST Hollow of Outer thick Tube CFDST- Concrete Filled Double Skin Tube (ST2)- CFDST of same thickness (IT2)- CFDST of Inner thick Tube (OT2)- CFDST of Outer thick Tube

Different Composite Columns used in Building

Composite Column SectionOUTER TUBE DimensionInner Tube DimensionFigure
BLTBLT
mmmmmmmmmmmm
CFT45045012---
CFT(S)450450124 nos. Plate Section (75x8mm)
ST14504501275-30075-30012
IT1450450875-30075-30016N/A
OT14504501675-30075-3008
ST24504501275-30075-30012
IT2450450875-30075-30016N/A
OT24504501675-30075-3008
TOTAL

Table 2: Different Composite Columns used in Building.

Model Output

Parameter 1 (Steel Ratio, Buckling Load, Plastic Resistance, H/T Ratio)

CFTCFT
(S)		(ST1)(IT1)(OT1)(ST1)(IT1)(OT1)(ST1)(IT1)(OT1)(ST1)(IT1)(OT1)(ST1)(IT1)(OT1)(ST1)(IT1)(OT1)THICK
NESS
LIMIT
Inner steel
tube		--757575100100100150150150200200200250250250300300300-
Steel Ratio0.350.370.380.320.420.390.340.420.410.380.440.440.420.470.480.460.50.520.50.53-
Buckling
Load		8704904011646996513238118411025113337121581075913455123861119413468125211156113372125561185213156-
Plastic
Resistance		1259213290133881163115067136351200715185140101264015302142251311215258142791342515054141741357814691-
H/T Ratio
(outer Tube)		37.537.537.556.2528.1337.556.2528.1337.556.2528.1337.556.2528.1337.556.2528.1337.556.2528.1342.31
H/T Ratio
(InnerTube)		--6.254.699.388.336.2512.512.59.3818.7516.6712.52520.8315.6331.252518.7537.542.31

Table 3: Comparison of Different CFDT Hollow Column.

(OT1)(OT1)(OT1)(OT1)(OT1)(OT1)(RS1)(RS1)(RS1)(RS1)(RS1)Thickness
Limit
Outer Steel
Tube Dimension		450450450450450450375375375375375-
Inner Steel Tube
Dimension		7510015020025030075100150200250-
Steel Ratio0.420.420.440.470.50.530.450.460.480.510.55-
Buckling Load13238133371345513468133721315696259718984198779821-
Plastic
Resistance		1506715185153021525815054146911169211810119261188311679-
H/T Ratio
(Outer Tube)		28.1328.1328.1328.1328.1328.1323.4423.4423.4423.4423.4442.31
H/T Ratio
(Inner Tube)		9.3812.518.752531.2537.59.3812.518.752531.2542.31

Table 4: Comparison of OT1 & RS1 Column.

CFTCFT(S)CFDST(ST2)75CFDST(IT2)75CFDST(OT2)75CFDST(ST2)100CFDST(IT2)100CFDST(OT2)100CFDST(ST2)150CFDST(IT2)150CFDST(OT2)150CFDST(ST2)200CFDST(IT2)200CFDST(OT2)200CFDST(ST2)250CFDST(IT2)250CFDST(OT2)250CFDST(ST2)300CFDST(IT2)300CFDST(OT2)300THICKNESS LIMIT
Inner Steel Tube Dimension--757575100100100150150150200200200250250250300300300-
Steel Ratio0.350.370.480.430.510.480.440.510.50.470.520.510.490.520.520.50.50.530.520.53-
Buckling Load87049040950077411117897898120113721037288841176510972967412166115951050512577122451138812997-
Plastic Resistance12592132901061687371241710984922712663117201020913153124571119013644131931217214135139291315314626-
H/T Ratio (outer tube)37.537.537.556.2528.1337.556.2528.1337.556.2528.1337.556.2528.1337.556.2528.1337.556.2528.1342.31
H/T Ratio (Inner tube)--6.254.699.388.336.2512.512.59.3818.7516.6712.52520.8315.6331.252518.7537.542.31

Table 5: Comparison of Different CFDT Column.

(OT2)75(OT2)100(OT2)150(OT2)200(OT2)250(OT2)300(RS2)75(RS2)100(RS2)150(RS2)200(RS2)250THICKNESS LIMIT
Outer Steel Tube Dimensions450450450450450450375375375375375-
Inner Steel Tube Dimensions7510015020025030075100150200250-
Steel Ratio0.510.510.520.520.50.530.530.530.540.550.55-
Buckling Load11178113721176512166125771299784518592895393309726-
Plastic Resistance1241712663131531364414135146261001110200106911118211673-
H/T Ratio (Outer Tube)282828282828232323232342.31
H/T Ratio (Inner Tube)9.3812.518.752531.2537.59.3812.518.752531.2542.31

Table 6: Comparison of OT2 & RS2 Column.

Output 1

  1. Load carrying capacity of CFT column is greater than Steel column [8].
  2. CFT(S) has higher Buckling Load than CFT column due to increase in Steel Ratio [9].
  3. CFDST Hollow column • Considering dimension for CFT, CFDST HOLLOW, composite column are 450X450 mm, 650X650mm, 800X800mm & for RS1 the column dimension is 375X375mm, 575X575mm, 725X725mm. • CFDST Hollow (IT
CFDST Hollow column
RSXSTEELCFTCFT(S)(ST1)(OT1)(RS1)
DISPLACEMENT11.06611.13911.15911.13711.12611.149
STORY DRIFT0.0002840.0002860.0002860.0002860.0002850.000286
BASE SHEAR6528665058.465007.86465264687.264241.2

Table 7: Comparison of CFDST Hollow Column in X-Direction

Output 2

  1. Displacement & Story Drift of CFT column has a percentage increase of 0.66% & 0.70% respectively and the Base Shear, Overturning Moment, Stiffness of CFT column has percentage decrease of 0.35%, 0.25%, 3.59% when compared to Steel column. So, CFT column performs good when compared to Steel column [11].
  2. Displacement, Stiffness of CFT(S) column has a percentage increase of 0.18%, 0.13% respectively and the Base Shear, Overturning Moment of CFT(S) column has a percentage decrease of 0.08%, 0.11%, when compared to CFT column. So, CFT(S) column performs well when compared to CFT column [12].
  3. CFDST Hollow column: • Displacement, Base Shear, Overturning Moment of ST1 column has a percentage decrease of 0.02%, 0.62%, 0.66% respectively and the Stiffness of ST1 column has a percentage increase of 11.03% when compared to CFT column.

So, ST1 column performs good when compared to CFT column [13].

  • Displacement, Story Drift, Base Shear, Overturning Moment of OT1 column has a percentage decrease of 0.12%, 0.35%, 0.57%, 0.61% respectively and the Stiffness of OT1 column has a percentage increase of 16.91% when compared to CFT column. So, OT1 column performs good when compared to CFT column [14].
  • Displacement, Story Drift of OT1 column has a percentage decrease of 0.10%, 0.35% respectively and the Base Shear, Overturning Moment, Stiffness of OT1 column has a percentage increase of 0.05%, 0.06%, 6.61% when compared to ST1 column. So, OT1 column performs good when compared to ST1 column [15].
  • Displacement, Story Drift, Base Shear, Overturning Moment, Stiffness of RS1 column has a percentage decrease of 0.21%, 0.35%, 0.69%, 0.71%, 36.78% respectively when compared to OT1 column. So, RS1 column performs good when compared to OT1 column [16].
  • In ST1, OT1, RS1 columns considering different inner tube dimensions such as 75,100,150,200,250,300mm, larger dimension tube performs good in considered parameters [17].

4. CFDST column: • Displacement, Story Drift of ST2 column has a percentage increase of 0.70%, 0.69% respectively and the Base Shear, Overturning Moment, Stiffness of ST2 column has a percentage decrease of 0.10%, 0.12%, 1.10% when compared to CFT column. ST2 column performs good when compared to CFT column [18].

• Displacement, Story Drift, Base Shear, Overturning Moment, Stiffness of OT2 column has a percentage increase of 0.81%, 0.69%, 0.07%, 0.03%, 4.45% respectively when compared to CFT column. CFT column performs good when compared to OT2 column because the grade provided in CFT column is M60 & grade provided in OT2 column is M30 (Outer & Inner) [19].

Parameter 3

(Moment of Inertia, C/S Area, Total Weight, Total Tonnage) Tables 8-10.

Weight (Kg/m2)Total Weight (Kg/m2)Total TonnagePercentage Reduction
steelconcrete
STEEL4354-4354335.23-
CFT18810221211123.0363.3
CFT(S)31410221336133.3860.21

Table 8: Comparison of Steel & Composite Column.

Figure 3: Tonnage of Steel, CFT, CFT(S) column.
Click to enlarge
Figure 3: Tonnage of Steel, CFT, CFT(S) column.
Figure 4
Click to enlarge
Figure 4
Weight (Kg/m2)Total Weight (Kg/m2)Total TonnagePercentage Increase
steelconcrete
STEEL18810221211123.03-
CFT(S)31410221336133.387.76

Table 9: Comparison of CFT & CFT(S) column.

Weight (Kg/m2)Total Weight (Kg/m2)Total TonnagePercentage Increase
steelconcrete
CFT18810221211123.03-
(ST1)37710221399138.311.03
(OT1)37710031380136.7410.02

Table 10: Comparison of CFT & CFDST Hollow column.

Output 3

1. Comparing Steel, CFT & CFT(S) column, the C/S Area of CFT & CFT(S) is higher than that of Steel column. M.O.I of Steel column is high than that of CFT & CFT(S) and the Total Tonnage of CFT & CFT(S) column is less than that of Steel column where the Percentage of Reduction in Tonnage is 63.30% and 60.21% respectively [20].

2. Comparing CFT, CFT(S) composite column, C/S Area & M.O.I of both columns are same. The Total Tonnage of CFT(S) is higher than that of CFT, where the percentage increase is 7.76% with respect to CFT column [21].

3. CFDST Hollow column

  • Comparing CFT, ST1, OT1 composite column, OT1 has less C/S Area than other columns (OT1<ST1<CFT). There is no significant change in M.O.I. The Total Tonnage of CFT is less than that of ST1, OT1 where the Percentage Increase is 11.03% & 10.02% for ST1 & OT1 respectively. (CFT<OT1<ST1) [22].
  • Eliminating ST1 due to high Total Tonnage & less Buckling Load comparative to OT1 [23].
  • So, while comparing the CFT & OT1 in Parameter 1, OT1 performs well and in Parameter 2 OT1 performs well and in Parameter 3 CFT performs well (where the Tonnage of CFT is less than that of OT1). So, the Reduced Size of OT1 comes in account and it is coined as Reduced Size RS1 [24].
  • Comparing CFT, OT1, RS1 composite column, C/S Area of RS1 has less C/S Area (RS1<OT1<CFT). M.O.I of RS1 column is less than that of CFT & OT1. The Total Tonnage of RS1 is less than that of CFT, OT1 where the Percentage Decrease in Tonnage for RS1 is 0.71% when compared to CFT & Percentage Decrease for RS1 is 10.66% when compared to OT1 (RS1<CFT<OT1) [25].

Results

  1. Comparing Steel & CFT Column, in Parameter 1,2,3, CFT column performs better than Steel column. Steel column can be replaced by CFT column.
  2. Comparing CFT & CFT(S) Column, in Parameter 1,2, CFT(S) column performs better than CFT column and in Parameter 3 CFT column performs better than CFT(S) column.
  3. CFT column can be replaced by CFT(S) column only in parameter 1&2, but CFT is optimum in parameter

Conclusion

The Steel & Composite Building is compared with 3 different parameters, in which CFT column performs better than Steel Column. CFT(S) column performs good than CFT column. OT1 column performs better than CFT, ST1, ST2 & OT2 column. RS1 column performs better than CFT, OT1, OT2 and RS2 column. To conclude CFT column is a better replacement for Steel column. CFT(S) column is a better replacement (without increasing the column dimension) for CFT column when building has slightly higher buckling load. OT1 column is best replacement (without increasing the column dimension) for CFT column due to the Hollow inner tube which provides less C/S Area without compromising the buckling load. CFDST column is not optimum as CFDST Hollow column, where the inner tubes are filled with higher grade of concrete.

References

  1. IS 875 (part1): 1987 Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures – unit weight of buildings materials and stored materials. pp: 1-37.
  2. IS 875 (part2): 1987 Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures – Imposed loads. pp: 4-18.
  3. IS 875 (part3): 2015 Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures – Wind loads. pp: 1-58.
  4. IS 875 (part5): 2015 Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures – special loads and load combination. pp: 2-18.
  5. IS 800 (2007) Code of practice for General Construction in Steel. pp: 1-143.
  6. IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. pp: 1-44.
  7. Eurocode 4 Design of composite steel and concrete structures. pp: 2-118.
  8. Laddha VR, Siddh SP, Hiwas PD (2021) Analytical Investigation of Composite Structure in Comparison of RCC Structure. International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering pp: 1-9.
  9. Gore VV, Kumbhar PD (2016) Comparative Behavioural Study of Multi Storied Building Provided with RCC and Concrete Filled Steel Tube Columns.
  10. Purushothaman V, Sukumaran A (2017) Comparative Study on Seismic Analysis of Multi Storied Buildings with Composite Columns. International Journal Of Engineering Research & Technology 6(6).
  11. Priya K, Narayan K, Ekta (2019) Seismic Analysis of Building with CFST and Concrete-Filled Double Skin Tubular Columns. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research 6(6).
  12. Zhang D, Zhao J, Zhang Y (2018) Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Concrete-Filled Double-Skin Steel Tubular Column for Steel Beam JOINT NUMBERs.
  13. Panchal D, Marathe P (2011) Comparative Study of R.C.C, Steel and Composite (G+30 Storey) Building.
  14. Uddin MA (2020) Comparative Study on Seismic Behaviour of Composite and RCC plan Irregular Structures. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) 9(1).
  15. Mahajan AS, Kalurkar LG (2016) “Behavior of RCC and Composite Structure under Seismic Loads”. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering Vol 13(4): 96-102.
  16. Mustafa M Wagh (2016) Behaviour of Concrete Filled Steel Tube with Reference to Different Shape of Column. 3(1).
  17. Tiwari NK, Singh P, Gautam R (2020) Comparative Seismic Analysis of RCC, Steel & Steel- Concrete Composite Frame Structure. International Journal of Trend in Research and Development 7(3): 222-230.
  18. Zhang D, Zhao J, He S (2018) Cyclic Testing of Concrete- Filled Double-Skin Steel Tubular Column to Steel Beam Joint with RC Slab.
  19. Kalingarani K, Shanmugavalli B, Sundarraja MC (2014) Axial Compressive Behaviour of Slender CFST members–Analytical Investigation. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 3(1): 22-25.
  20. Sabith KM, Sabeena MV (2017) Seismic Analysis of Irregular Composite Structures with Shear Connectors using ETABS. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 3(3): 1-7.
  21. Romero ML, Espinos A, Portolés JM (2015) Slender double-tube ultra-high strength concrete-filled tubular columns under ambient temperature and fire. Journal of Elsevier 19: 536-545.
  22. Zhanga Q, Schafera M (2018) Comparison of design for composite columns in steel and concrete according to Eurocode 4 and Chinese design codes. Polytechnic University of Valencia.
  23. Jadhav A, Sayyed AQ, Kadne V (2020) Construction of a high-rise commercial building using CFT technology in Mumbai, India. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research 11(5): 1136-1140.
  24. Tailora A, Dalalb SP, Desaic AK(2017) Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel Column Building & Concrete Filled Tube Column Building under Static and Dynamic Loading. Procedia Engineering Vol 173: 1847- 1853.
  25. Pansuriya D, Panchal VR, Panchal DR (2018) Experimental Study on Comparison of Square, Rectangular and Circular Concrete Filled Steel Tube Composite Columns. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research 5(7): 988-993.
More from this journal

Cite this article

BibTeX
APA
RIS
@article{suganth2023,
  title   = {Comparative Study on Seismic Performance of Steel Building &
Composite Building with CFT & CFST Column},
  author  = {Suganth G},
  journal = {Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology Open Access},
  year    = {2023},
  volume  = {8},
  number  = {1},
  doi     = {10.23880/nnoa-16000225}
}
Suganth G (2023). Comparative Study on Seismic Performance of Steel Building &
Composite Building with CFT & CFST Column. Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology Open Access, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.23880/nnoa-16000225
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Comparative Study on Seismic Performance of Steel Building &
Composite Building with CFT & CFST Column
AU  - Suganth G
JO  - Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology Open Access
PY  - 2023
VL  - 8
IS  - 1
DO  - 10.23880/nnoa-16000225
ER  -