IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 1 | Issue 11 | May 2015

ISSN (online): 2349-784X

A Comparative Study of Conventional Structural

System with Monolithic Structural System
Amal R. Vora
P.G. Student
Department of Applied Mechanics
L. D. College of Engineering Ahmedabad

Prof. P.G. Patel

Associate Professor
Department of Applied Mechanics
L. D. College of Engineering Ahmedabad

Abstract
In the seismic design of buildings, reinforced concrete structural walls, or shear walls, act as major earthquake resisting
members. Structural walls provide an efficient bracing system and offer great potential for lateral load resistance. The properties
of these seismic shear walls dominate the response of the buildings, and therefore, it is important to evaluate the seismic response
of the walls appropriately. In these paper conventional and monolithic structural systems for G+5 story was studied with the help
of ETABS v 13. Parameters like Lateral displacement, story drift are calculated for both the structures.
Keywords: Conventional Structural System, Monolithic Structural System, ETABS v 13
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION
Building can be defined as an enclosed structure intended for human occupancy. It is found that some structural systems perform
better in earthquake than others. For the research purpose, researchers have focused on two structure system namely,
1) Conventional Structural System
2) Monolithic Structural System
In Monolithic System instead of traditional column and beam construction; all walls, floors, slabs, columns, beams, stairs,
together with door and window openings are cast in place in one operation at site by use of specially designed, easy to handle
with less labour and equipment efforts modular form work made of Aluminium Plastic composite. Using the formwork system,
quick construction of several units is possible.

II. OBJECTIVE OF STUDIES

The objective of the study is to carry out comparative study of Conventional structural system with and without shear
wall with monolithic structural system.
To determine the suitability, adoptability and economic feasibility of conventional structural system against monolithic
structural system.
To compare the various Parameters.

III. METHODOLOGY
For this study, a 5-story building with lift room having a 3-meters height for each story is modelled. The sections of structural
elements is rectangular with common dimensions. The buildings are modelled using software ETAB v 13, three different models
- Conventional Structural System (with and without shear wall) and Monolithic Structural System.
Dead load & live load calculation is as per IS 875, and Earthquake load calculation is as per IS 1893 taking EQ Zone-III by using
static coefficient method.
The data for these frames are given below.
Seismic Zone III, No of storeys 1 to 5, Floor Height 3m, Thickness of Shear wall 150mm, Materials M25, Fe 415,
Depth of Slab 125mm, Unit Weight of RCC 25kN/m3,Type of soil Medium. Size of beam 300x415 mm, Size of column
300x425 mm.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

157

A Comparative Study of Conventional Structural System with Monolithic Structural System

(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 025)

Fig. 1: Building Plan

IV. RESULTS

Fig. 2: Comparison of Displacement in X Direction

Fig. 3: Comparison of Displacement in Y Direction

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

158

A Comparative Study of Conventional Structural System with Monolithic Structural System

(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 025)

0.0001

0.000243
0.000113
0.000042

Story3

0.0002

0.000158
0.000114

Story4

0.000457

0.000559

0.000242
0.000211

Story5

0.000212
0.000173

0.000519

0.000449

0.000254
0.000229

0.0003

0
Lift Room Terrace

SMRF

Story2

SMRF With SW

Story1

Plinth

Monolithic

Fig. 4: Comparison of Drift in X Direction

0.000051
0.000036

0.000096
0.000065

0.000225

0.000401

0.000472
0.000143
0.000097

0.000367

0.000284

0.000437
0.000148
0.000098

0.000126
0.000087

0.0001

0.000143
0.000098

0.0002

0.000133
0.000095

Drift

0.0003

0.00013
0.000072

0.0004

0.000285

0.0005

0.000478

Comparision Of Drift in Y Direction

0.0006

0
Lift Room

Terrace

Story5

SMRF

Story4

Story3

SMRF With SW

Story2

Story1

Plinth

Monolithic

Fig. 5: Comparison of Drift in Y Direction

Fig. 6: Comparison of Lateral Load

Comparision Of Story Shear
Lift Room Terrace

Story5

Story4

Story3

Story2

Story1

Plinth

0.00

-21.23
-36.10
-500.00

Story Shear

Drift

0.0004

0.000253
0.000232

0.000324
0.000265
0.000201

0.0005

0.000354
0.000241
0.000225

0.0006

0.000561

Comparision Of Drift in X Direction

-1000.00

-250.05
-406.70 -464.34
-761.80

-614.28

-708.60

-1009.77
-1500.00

-760.13

-1165.75

-781.70

SMRF
-784.42

-1250.96 -1286.64 -1291.39

SMRF With SW
Monolithic

-2000.00
-2500.00
-2524.76
-3000.00

Fig. 7: Comparison of Story Shear

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

159

A Comparative Study of Conventional Structural System with Monolithic Structural System

(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 025)

V. DISCUSSION
One to five storeyed building with and without shear wall and Monolithic System were analysed and designed as per the codal
provisions and the results are compared in various aspects. It is found that storeyed displacement in Monolithic Structural
System decreases as compared to conventional structural system in both the directions. Drift is also decreases in both the
directions for Monolithic Structural System as compared to conventional structural system. As stiffness increases lateral load on
structure increases.It is found that decrease in displacement in X direction, in monolithic system is varied from 50-80% as
compared to conventional structural system (without shear wall). And the variance is 80% in the case of Y directions. In the case
of Drift, in both X and Y direction variance ranges between 55-80% on an average.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

IS: 1893 (Part 1) 2002, criteria for earthquake resistant design of structure, Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS: 456- 2000 Code of design reinforcement, Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS: 4326-1993,(1993), Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant and Construction of Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
IS 875- 1987 (Part I & II),Code Of Practices For Design Loads For Building And Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Seismic Analysis Of RCC Building With and Without Shear Wall, P.P. Chandurkar and Dr.P.S.Pajgade, International journal Of Modern Engineering,
Vol.3, Issue 3, May June 2013.
Best Placement of Shear Walls In an RCC Space Frame Based of Seismic Response, Anshul Sud and Raghav Singh Shekhawat and Poonam Dhiman,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, National Conference on Advances in Engineering and Technology, March- 2014.
Seismic behaviour of design and detaling of rc shear walls part ii, Manoj S. Medhekar and Sudhir K. Jain, The indian concrete journals, september-1993.
Seismic behaviour of design and detaling of rc shear walls part i Manoj S. Medhekar and Sudhir K. Jain, The indian concrete journals, july-1993
Seismic Behaviour of RCC Shear Wall Under Different Soil Conditions, Anand N and Mightraj C and Prince Arulraj G, Indian Geotechnical Conference
2010, GEOtrendz

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

160