International Journal of Advances in Engineering Sciences Vol.

4, Issue 4, October, 2014

Comparison of Seismic Performance of Solid and Hollow

Reinforced Concrete members in RCC framed Building using
ETABS Software

Abhay
B.Tech, Deptt. of Civil Engineering
J.N.G.E.C.
Sundernagar, India
E-mail: abhayguleria92@gmail.co m

Abstract—Hollow (Box-type) reinforced concrete beams and
columns help in decreasing superstructure weight and hence
seismic mass is minimized as compared to conventional solid
reinforced concrete beams and columns. ETABS is commonly used
to analyses: Skyscrapers, parking garages, steel & concrete
structures, low and high rise buildings, and portal frame
structures. The case study in this paper mainly emphasizes on
structural behavior of R.C.C. framed building having hollow and
solid reinforced concrete members. Modelling of 3-storey R.C.C.
framed building is done on the ETABS software for analysis. Post
analysis of the structure, maximum shear forces, bending moments,
and maximum storey displacement are computed and then
compared for all the analyzed cases. The results indicated that the
drop in storey shear, overturning moment etc. in case of hollow
members as compared to solid members in R.C.C. framed building.
Keywords- Structural behaviour; Hollow (Box-type)
reinforced concrete member; ETABS; Storey shear; Storey
overturning moment.
code and combinations are according to IS -875(Part5). Post
analysis of the structure, storey shear, and maximu m storey
overturning mo ment, shear force and bending mo ments of
beam and colu mn, and maximu m s torey displacement are
computed and then compared for all the analysed cases.
II. RCC FRAMED BUILDING DETAILS
An RCC framed building is basically an assembly of
slabs, beams, colu mns and foundation inter-connected to
each other as a unit. The load t ransfer mechanis m in these
structures is from slabs to beams, fro m beams to columns,
and then ultimately fro m co lu mns to the foundation, which
in turn passes the load to the soil. In this structural analysis
study, we have adopted two cases by using Solid and
Hollow (Bo x-type) members for the same structure, as
explained below.
1. Solid reinforced concrete member
2. Hollow (Box- Type) reinforced concrete member

I. INTRODUCTION An RCC framed build ing is 12m x 12m in plan with

Ho llo w (Bo x-type) members are lighter in weight and columns spaced at 4m fro m center to center. A floor to floor
height of 3.5m is assumed. Plan of the building for both
help in decreasing superstructure weight and hence seismic
mass is min imized as compare to conventional solid cases is shown in the following figure 1.
reinforced concrete beams and colu mns. The economical
convenience in the use of hollow reinforced concrete
member is due to the cost saving afforded by reduced
section area (up to 70%). A. Ku mar [6] proposed
ferrocement bo x sections for beam-slab construction and flat
slab construction. It is mentioned that the ferrocement box
beam-slab construction is 15.6% cheaper than conventional
beam and slab construction. T.C.Rao et al; [3] conducted an
experimental investigation on ferrocement channel beams to
study the cracking and ultimate strength in bending.
This analysis mainly deals with the study of structural
behaviour of Hollow (Bo x- type) and So lid rein forced
concrete members in the RCC framed building under
Seis mic load using ETA BS software. A 12m x 12m RCC
framed build ing having 4m x 4m bays is modelled using
ETA BS. The height of each storey is taken as 3.5m, making Figure 1. Plan of the RCC framed building
total height of the building 10.5m. Loads considered are
taken in accordance with the IS-875(1987), IS-1893(2002)

Print-ISSN: 2231-2013 e-ISSN: 2231-0347 43

 International Journal of Advances in Engineering Sciences Vol.4, Issue 4, October, 2014

T ABLE I. RCC framed Building Details in both the cases as it is light weight structure as fabricated
walls are used to construct the rooms of building so they do
Length x Width 12m x 12m
not impart much load on the beams. Loads considered are as
No. of storeys 3 follows:
Storey height 3.5m
Beam dimensions 450 x 450 mm 1. Dead load: Self-weight comprises of the weight of
Column dimensions 500 x 500 mm beams, columns and slab of the building.
Slab thickness 100 mm
Support conditions Fixed 2. Live load: Floor load: 3kN/ m2 (IS 875 (Part 2)
acting on beams

III. MEMBER DESCRIPTION 3. Seis mic Load: Seis mic zone: V (Z=0.36), Soil type:
T ABLE II. Column Details II, Importance factor: 1, Response reduction factor:
5, Damp ing: 5%. IS 1893(Part -1):2002. Seismic
Column
Solid Member Hollow Member
load is considered along two directions EQX and
EQY along x, y directions respectively.
500 x 500 mm
500 x 500 mm
T hickness = 100mm VI. LOADING COMBINATION
The structure has been analyzed for load comb inations
considering all the previous loads in proper ratio.
Co mbination of dead load, live load and seismic load was
taken into consideration according to IS-code 875(Part 5).
T ABLE V. Loading Combination

Load Combinations
Sr. No. Load Combination Name Load Case Factor
1 DCON1 DEAD 1.5
2 DCON2 DEAD 1.5
T ABLE III. Beam Details LIVE 1.5
3 DCON3 DEAD 1.2
Beam LIVE 1.2
Solid Member Hollow Member EQX 1.2
4 DCON4 DEAD 1.2
LIVE 1.2
450 x 450 mm EQX -1.2
450 x 450 mm
T hickness=100mm 5 DCON5 DEAD 1.2
LIVE 1.2
EQY 1.2
6 DCON6 DEAD 1.2
LIVE 1.2
EQY -1.2
IV. MATERIAL S PECIFICATIONS 7 DCON7 DEAD 1.5
EQX 1.5
T ABLE IV. Materials used in the RCC framed building 8 DCON8 DEAD 1.5
EQX -1.5
Material Specifications 9 DCON9 DEAD 1.5
EQY 1.5
Grade of Concrete ,M30 f ck = 30N/mm 2 10 DCON10 DEAD 1.5
EQY -1.5
11 DCON11 DEAD 0.9
Grade of Steel f y = 415N/mm 2 EQX 1.5
12 DCON12 DEAD 0.9
Density of Concrete ϒc = 25kN/m 3 EQX -1.5
13 DCON13 DEAD 0.9
EQY 1.5
V. LOADING 14 DCON14 DEAD 0.9
EQY -1.5
Loads acting on the structure are dead load (DL), Live load
and Earthquake load (EL). Here wall load is not considered

Print-ISSN: 2231-2013 e-ISSN: 2231-0347 44

 International Journal of Advances in Engineering Sciences Vol.4, Issue 4, October, 2014

RCC framed building having solid concrete members have

VII. MODELLING IN ETABS higher values of overturning mo ment as compared to hollow
(Bo x-type) member. Hollow beams and colu mns help in
reducing storey overturning mo ment as compared to solid
beams and colu mns. There is 21.85% reduction for Base,
27% for 1st storey and 26.4% for 2nd storey in the storey
overturning mo ment due to Hollow members. Behaviour of
EQY load is same as that of EQX load as the building is
symmetrical in plan. However the storey overturning
mo ment decreases with increase in storey height fo r both
cases.
B. Comparison of Storey Shear for Solid and Hollow
Structural members

Figure 2. 3-D Model of RCC framed Building in

ET ABS

Figure 3. Elevation View

VIII. MODELLING RESULTS Figure 5. Storey vs. Storey Shear due to EQY load

A. Storey Overturning Moments due to Seismic load
As per above figure it has been concluded that the storey
shear decreases with the increase in storey height. Storey
shear is less in case of Hollow members than solid members
in RCC framed build ing. It is observed that the storey shear
for RCC framed building having hollo w members is
decreased by 27% as compared to solid members.

C. Storey Drift for Hollow and Solid Members in RCC

framed building

Figure 4. Storey vs. Storey Overturning Moments due to EQX load

Figure 6. Storey vs. Storey Drift due to EQX load

Print-ISSN: 2231-2013 e-ISSN: 2231-0347 45
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering Sciences Vol.4, Issue 4, October, 2014

As per figure 8 it has been concluded that the maximu m

Fro m figure 6 it is observed that Hollow beams and columns
displacement increases with the storey height. There is 8-
in RCC framed building help in reducing storey drift as
9.5% reduction in the maximu m node displacement due to
compared to solid beams and co lu mns. There is 8-9.5%
Hollow members in RCC framed building as compared to
reduction in the storey drift due to Hollow members.
Solid members.
D. Shear Force and B.M. of Column F. Max Stress (Smax) Range for RCC framed building
Colu mn C5 of storey-1 of RCC of building is taken for T ABLE VIII. Max Stress Range due to DCON5 and DCON10
comparison of maximu m bending mo ment, axial force and
shear force for both the cases. Loading Solid Member Hollow Me mbe r
T ABLE VII. Forces for C5 Column Storey 2
Combination (kN/m ) (kN/m 2 )
Force s Solid Member Hollow Member DCON 10 1 -58.03 to 274.38 -49.35 to 240.56
Axial Force P 35.28 kN 27.35 kN 1.5(DEAD – EQY) 2 -48.45 to 236.84 -43.17 to 210.32
Shear Force V2 31.83 kN 25.47 kN 3 -30.56 to 138.07 -27.4 to 127.37
Shear Force V3 20.18 kN 15.67 kN
DCON 5 1 -44.10 to 217.18 -40.71 to 193.67
T orsion T 0.265 kN-m 0.23 kN-m
1.2 (DEAD+LIVE+ 2 -40.01 to 190.71 -39.95 to 173.67
Bending Moment M2 51.38 kN-m 39.71 kN-m
EQY) 3 -27.07 to 113.07 -34.81 to 111.58
B.M. M3 66.58 kN-m 52.64 kN-m

As from above table it is observed that the maximu m stress

range is less in building having hollow member than the
solid member for loading co mbination DCON5 and
B.M. M3 (kN-m)
DCON10. Maximu m stresses are higher at 1st storey than
the 3rd storey for both cases.
B.M. M2(kN-m)

S.F. V3 (kN)
Hollow Member
Solid Member
Shear Force V2 (kN)

Axial P (kN)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Figure 7. Comparison of Column Forces using ET ABS

As it has been concluded that the Hollow member in RCC

framed build ing help in reducing forces without failure
Figure 9. Max Stress (Smax ) diagram for Solid framed Building
which leads economical design of the building.
due to 1.5(DEAD – EQY) load
E. Maximum Node Displacement

Figure 8. Maximum Node Displacement of members

Figure 10. Max Stress (Smax ) diagram for Hollow framed Building
Print-ISSN: 2231-2013 e-ISSN: 2231-0347 46 due to 1.5(DEAD – EQY) load
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering Sciences Vol.4, Issue 4, October, 2014

G. Weight of RCC framed building members in RCC framed build ing as compared to
ETA BS software g ives the total weight of structure. Data Solid members.
obtained is categorized into weight of beam, colu mn and (2) There is 20% to 27% reduction in the storey
slab. overturning mo ment due to Hollo w members in
T ABLE IX. Weight of Members given by ET ABS RCC framed building. However the storey
overturning mo ment decreases with increase in
Solid Hollow storey height for both cases.
Se ction No.
Total Member Member (3) Storey shear for RCC framed building having
Length (m) Weight Weight hollow members is decreased by 27% as compared
(Ton) (Ton)
to solid members. Storey shear decreases with the
B450x450 72 288 122.6054 84.76424 increase in storey height.
C500x500 48 168 100.9098 64.58228 (4) There is 8-9 % reduction in the maximu m node
Slab S100 103.7929 103.7929 displacement and storey drift due to Hollo w
T OT AL 327.3082 253.1395 members in RCC framed build ing as compared to
Solid members.
Fro m the table it is observed that there is reduction of total (5) 74.1687 Ton of M30 concrete is saved by using
weight of the RCC framed build ing by using Hollow Hollow (Bo x-type) members in RCC framed
members. 74.1687 Ton of M30 concrete is saved by using building so it leads to economical design without
Hollow (Bo x-type) members. 22.67% weight of the the failure of the structure against seismic loads.
Structure is reduced by using Hollow members as compared
REFERENCES
to Solid members.
[1] Thanuja H.P, E.Ramesh Babu and Dr N S Kumar, ―A Study on
H. Axial Force (P) obtained from ETABS for columns of Behaviour of Circular Stiffened Hollow Steel Column Filled
1st storey with Self Compacting Concrete Under Monotonic Loading‖,
INDIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH, Volume : 4,
T ABLE X. Axial Forces for Columns of 1 st storey Issue : 8, August 2014, ISSN - 2249-555X.
[2] Waleed AboEl-Wafa Mohamed, ― Seismic Capacity of RC
Axial Force P (kN) hollow block slab building and retrofitting systems‖, Journal
Column
Solid Member Hollow Member of Engineering Sciences, Assiut University, Faculty of
500 x 500 mm
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Engineering, Vol.42, No. 3, May 2014.
C1 44.39 -982.28 35.13 -902.77 [3] Dr. T . ChandraSekharRao, Dr. T. D. GunneswaraRao, Dr. N.
C2 35.28 -289.15 27.35 -208.65 V. RamanaRao, Ch. Rambabu, ― An Experimental study
C3 35.28 -289.15 27.35 -208.65 on ferrocement box-beams under flexural loading,‖
C4 44.39 -982.28 35.13 -902.77 International Journal of Emerging T echnology and Advanced
C5 35.28 -289.15 27.35 -208.65 Engineering, ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9,
C6 1.23 -270.38 1.41 -181.40 September 2012.
C7 3.73 -270.38 2.82 -181.40 [4] Rao.T.C, Rao.T .D.G & Rao.B.P.R, ―Flexural Behaviour of
C8 -10.36 -289.15 -8.06 -208.65 Thin-webbed Ferrocement Channel Sections‖, International
C9 35.28 -289.15 27.35 -181.40 Journal of Applied Engineering Research, Vol.7, No.7 (2012),
C10 3.73 -270.38 2.82 -181.40 pp.707-716.
C11 3.73 -270.38 2.82 -181.40 [5] Falah M. Wegian and Falah A. Almottiri, ―Experimental
C12 10.36 -289.15 8.06 -208.65 Studies on Reinforced Hollow- Block Concrete Sections‖,
C13 44.39 -982.28 35.13 -902.77 Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 1, No. 4, 2007.
C14 -10.36 -289.15 -8.06 -208.65 [6] A. Kumar; “Ferrocement Box sections-viable option for Floors
C15 10.36 -289.15 8.06 -208.65 and Roof of Multi-storied Buildings”, Asian Journal of Civil
Engineering (Building and Housing), Vol. 6, No. 6, 2005, pp.
C16 -44.39 -982.28 -35.13 -902.77
[7] Giulio Ranzo & M J N Priestley, ― Seismic performance of large
reinforced concrete circular hollow columns,‖ 12WCEE, 2000.
As from the above table is has been concluded that the axial [8] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-875, part 1 (1987), Dead
force in solid colu mns of RCC framed building is higher as Loads on Buildings and Structures, New Delhi, India.
[9] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-875, part 2 (1987), Live
compared to hollow (Box-type) columns. Loads on Buildings and Structures, New Delhi, India.
[10] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-1893, part 1 (2002), Criteria
IX. CONCLUSIONS for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: Part 1 General
On the basis of results obtained from structural analysis of provisions and Buildings, New Delhi, India.
R.C.C. framed build ing using ETABS the following
conclusions can be drawn:
(1) Maximu m node displacement of hollow members
given by ETABS is less as compared to solid
membe rs. There is 8-9.5% reduction in the
maximu m node displacement due to Hollo w

Print-ISSN: 2231-2013 e-ISSN: 2231-0347 47